HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-20 Amended Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
5:30 PM
Amended Special Meeting Non-Televised Closed Session (5:30) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)
Amended on 2/27/20 to update Item No. 12 Staff Report and to add Item No. 13 Staff Report
and Attachments: A. General Plan Annual Report, B. Planning Commission suggestions on
General Plan Amendments, and C. Other miscellaneous comments.
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, March 03, 2020, commencing at 5:30 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 - 5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title:
City Attorney.
2.Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code section 54957.6). Agency
designated representatives: Mayor Steven Scharf and Vice Mayor Darcy Paul.
Unrepresented employee: City Attorney.
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Page 1
CC 03-03-20
1 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Subject: Recognition of Fine Arts Commission Young Artists Award winners.
Recommended Action: Present awards to Fine Arts Commission Young Artist Award
winners.
2.Subject: Proclamation to Santa Clara County Librarian Nancy Howe upon her
retirement and recognizing her dedicated service to the community.
Recommended Action: Present proclamation to Santa Clara County Librarian Nancy
Howe upon her retirement and recognizing her dedicated service to the community.
3.Subject: Proclamation recognizing March as "Red Cross Month."
Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing March as "Red Cross Month."
4.Subject: Proclamation to Carl Valdez for being awarded Superintendent of the Year by
the Maintenance Superintendents Association (MSA) of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Recommended Action: Present proclamation to Carl Valdez for being awarded
Superintendent of the Year by the Maintenance Superintendents Association (MSA) of
the San Francisco Bay Area.
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda. The total time for Oral Communications will
ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the
Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to
the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases,
State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF (10 minutes)
5.Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments
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.
Page 2
CC 03-03-20
2 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
6.Subject: Approve the February 10 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 10 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
7.Subject: Approve the February 18 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 18 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
8.Subject: Treasurer’s Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2019
Recommended Action: Accept staff report and provide recommendations.
Staff Report
A - Treasurer's Report 12.31.19
B - Wells Fargo Custodial Report 12.31.19
C - LAIF Statement 12.31.19
9.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pizza My Heart, Inc (dba Pizza
My Heart), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 140
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pizza
My Heart, Inc (dba Pizza My Heart), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 140
Staff Report
A - Application
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
10.Subject: Second reading for Municipal Code Amendments to Chapter 19.112 -
Accessory Dwelling Units; Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses
in Agricultural and Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 - Definitions; for
Clarifications, and Consistency with recently adopted State Bills (Application No.
MCA-2018-04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide).
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 20-2199:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112,
Accessory Dwelling Units; Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses
in Agricultural and Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 Definitions.”
Staff Report
A – Draft Ordinance No. 20-2199
B – Redlines indicating amendments since first reading
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 3
CC 03-03-20
3 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
11.Subject: Consider approving a new 155-room seven-story hotel (24-hour operations)
with underground parking, event meeting rooms, a ground floor restaurant with
separate bar, and a rooftop lounge with separate bar by demolishing a commercial
building with an area of 8,323 sq. ft. City Actions would include General Plan
Amendments to consider amending Table LU-1 by increasing the development
allocation of hotel rooms to 155 hotel rooms in the Homestead Special Area and Figure
LU-2 and Policy LU-23.2 adding Figure LU-5 to allow increased heights and reduced
building plane within the North De Anza Gateway specific to this development. City
permits would include: Development, Architectural and Site Approval, and Use
Permits. A Development Agreement is also proposed; (Application No(s):
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, DA-2018-01, U-2018-02, EA-2018-03;
Applicant(s): Sherly Kwok (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd.;
APN #326-10-061 (Continued from January 21, 2020)
Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing and find:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 20-005 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation
measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A).
2. Adopt Resolution No. 20-006 approving a General Plan Amendment (Attachment
B).
3. Adopt Resolution No. 20-007 approving a Development Permit (Attachment C).
4. Adopt Resolution No. 20-008 approving an Architectural and Site Approval Permit
(Attachment D).
5. Adopt Resolution No. 20-009 approving a Use Permit (Attachment E).
Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 20-2195: “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving a Development Agreement for the
Development of a New 7-Story, 155 Room Hotel With Associated Site and Landscaping
Improvements Located at 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)” (Attachment F).
Page 4
CC 03-03-20
4 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution EA-2018-03 – Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation measures, and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B - Draft Resolution GPA-2018-01 – General Plan Amendment
C - Draft Resolution DP-2018-01 – Development Permit
D - Draft Resolution ASA-2018-02 – Architectural and Site Approval Permit
E - Draft Resolution U-2018-02 – Use Permit
F - Draft Ordinance DA-2018-01 – Development Agreement between the City and Northwest Properties
LP
G - Fiscal Analysis of the De Anza Hotel GPA Application
H – Parking Generation Analysis for the Proposed Hotel Located at 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard in
Cupertino, CA, dated June 19, 2019
I - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, ERC Recommendation dated August 1
J - Public Comment
K – Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Memo dated December 5,
2019
L - Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Memo for City Council dated
February 20, 2020
M – Project Plans
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
12.Subject: Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and budget adjustments for Fiscal
Year 2019-20.
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY
2019-20.
2. Approve Budget Modification 1920-076 for Mid-Year adjustments as described in the
Mid-Year Financial Report.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 20-026 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Mid-Year Financial Report
C - Performance Measures
D - Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
13.Subject: General Plan Annual Report, and suggestions to further clarify General Plan
Policies and Strategies
Recommended Action: That the City Council:
1. Receive the General Plan Annual Review Report (Attachment A).
2. Authorize the City Manager to incorporate the list of General Plan amendment
suggestions made by individual Planning Commissioners (Attachment B) into the
previous list of suggested General Plan amendments with the General Plan and
Objective Standards 2019/2020 Work Program Item.
Page 5
CC 03-03-20
5 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
Staff Report
A - General Plan Annual Report
B - GPA suggested by individual commissioners
C - Other miscellaneous suggestions
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED (As necessary)
COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend 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.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100
written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You
are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to
the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights
you may have on the information provided to the City.
Page 6
CC 03-03-20
6 of 873
City Council Agenda March 3, 2020
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 7
CC 03-03-20
7 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title: City Attorney.
File #:20-7090,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
8 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject:Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code section 54957.6). Agency designated representatives: Mayor
Steven Scharf and Vice Mayor Darcy Paul. Unrepresented employee: City Attorney.
File #:20-7129,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
9 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Recognition of Fine Arts Commission Young Artists Award winners.
Present awards to Fine Arts Commission Young Artist Award winners.
File #:20-6931,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
10 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Proclamation to Santa Clara County Librarian Nancy Howe upon her retirement and
recognizing her dedicated service to the community.
Present proclamation to Santa Clara County Librarian Nancy Howe upon her retirement and
recognizing her dedicated service to the community.
File #:20-7026,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
11 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Proclamation recognizing March as "Red Cross Month."
Present proclamation recognizing March as "Red Cross Month."
File #:20-7009,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
12 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Proclamation to Carl Valdez for being awarded Superintendent of the Year by the
Maintenance Superintendents Association (MSA) of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Present proclamation to Carl Valdez for being awarded Superintendent of the Year by the
Maintenance Superintendents Association (MSA) of the San Francisco Bay Area.
File #:20-6998,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
13 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Report on Committee assignments
File #:19-6406,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
14 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Approve the February 10 City Council minutes
Approve the February 10 City Council minutes
File #:20-7002,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
15 of 873
Page 1
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 10, 2020
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 5:31 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Liang Chao (5:32
p.m.), Rod Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
STUDY SESSION
1. Subject: Review Progress on FY 2019-20 City Work Program and provide any input to
staff.
Recommended Action: Review Progress on FY 2019-20 City Work Program and
provide any input to staff.
Written communications for this item included a presentation.
City Manager Deborah Feng reviewed the process and gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Sanat Singhal (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Youth Climate Action Team- waste
reduction policies, educate residents on food choices, impact with policies.
Guyn Azur (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Youth Climate Action Team- single use
plastic reduction, wasteful distribution of plastic, limiting food accessories.
Brandon Pan and Allison D’Souza (Cupertino residents) on behalf of Youth Climate
CC 03-03-20
16 of 873
City Council Minutes February 10, 2020
Page 2
Action Team- talked about lawn chemicals, polluting waterways, drain on water supply,
residential awareness, replacing lawns with native plants, reduction of water usage,
pesticides, and fertilizers.
Anika Huang (Santa Clara resident) on behalf of Youth Climate Action Team- carbon
dioxide levels, technology to remove carbon from atmosphere, carbon negative concrete
code.
Sophia Wang (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Youth Climate Action Team- educating on
climate crisis and on home induction stoves, partnering with City of efforts.
Abhimanyv Jayaraman (AJ) Meyer (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Youth Climate
Action Team- summer sustainability internship opportunities with the City.
Hoi Poon (San Jose resident), on behalf of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action- partner
with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), regressive tax measures, educate public on
food and materials, 2nd annual Climate Action Summit.
Jennifer Griffin- issues with new state legislation on housing bills for accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), property line allowances, consider apartment and condo communities.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Council reviewed Progress on FY 2019-20 City Work Program and provided input to staff.
2. Subject: Develop Council Goals to guide the upcoming City Work Program.
Recommended Action: Develop Council Goals for formal adoption at a future Council
meeting.
Written Communications for this item included a staff presentation.
City Manager Deborah Feng continued the presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke.
Jennifer Griffin- housing bills, having local control taken, will affect future voting choices.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
CC 03-03-20
17 of 873
City Council Minutes February 10, 2020
Page 3
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Council developed Council Goals for formal adoption at a future Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:40 p.m., Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
_____________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
CC 03-03-20
18 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Approve the February 18 City Council minutes
Approve the February 18 City Council minutes
File #:19-6430,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
19 of 873
Page 1
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Liang Chao,
Rod Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None
CLOSED SESSION
1. Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code Section 54957). Title:
City Attorney
In open session, Mayor Scharf reported that Council continued this item to a future
meeting and did not take any reportable action.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:46 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Regular City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Liang Chao,
Rod Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
CC 03-03-20
20 of 873
Page 2
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Resident- talked about penalties for the shed structure in her backyard, seeking resolution with
neutral parties, changing City codes, and adding the item to an agenda.
Henry Chang (Cupertino resident), talked about small cell sites, locations away from residents
and schools, health effects from exposure, need for research, and effected home values.
Anjali Kauser, on behalf of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, presented a video of the
Cupertino Education Fair and Lunar New Year Luncheon events for the community and local
businesses.
Sanat Singhal, on behalf of Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team, talked about plant-based
meals on Green Mondays, single use plastic reduction, and climate restoration and climate
negative bills.
Brandon Pan, on behalf of Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team, talked about water
conservation and education, environmental property alterations, engaging the youth through
summer internships.
Brook Ezzat (Cupertino resident), talked about agendizing an item for a resident who attends
the Council meetings and informing her of her options to go to the courts.
City Manager Deborah Feng read the following statement:
“I want to let Ms. Lee and the public know that the City has been receiving and addressing her
complaints. As you know, the City contracts with the Sheriff’s Office for police services in
Cupertino. Between March of 2017 and April of 2018, the Internal Affairs division of the
Sheriff’s Office has received seven inquiries and complaints from Ms. Lee. The Internal Affairs
Division investigates allegations of illegal behavior by sheriff deputies and captains. All
complaints alleging false statements or false arrests were reviewed by the internal affairs
division and the matters were closed without any finding of wrongdoing. Captain Urena has
also spoken to Ms: Lee in June of 2017, and most recently in January of 2020. On both occasions
he advised that she should direct her complaints to the public defender handling her case (as a
defense to her arrests) and to the Sheriff’s office the Internal Affairs Division. I would second
that advice. The City Council and the City Manager do not independently investigate these
types of allegations. That is the role of the public defender and the Internal Affairs Division of
the Sheriff’s Office.”
CC 03-03-20
21 of 873
Page 3
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Nori (Cupertino resident), talked about cell towers, proposed and active locations in
Cupertino, 5G technology requirements, legislation and FCC rules, and regulation (provided
written comments).
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF (10 minutes)
1. Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their various committees.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to approve items on the Consent Calendar as presented
except for item numbers 13 and 14 which were pulled for discussion. Ayes: Scharf, Paul,
Chao, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
2. Subject: Approve the January 27 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 27 City Council minutes
3. Subject: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes
4. Subject: Approve the February 4 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 4 City Council minutes
5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 09, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-015 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 09, 2019
6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 16, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-016 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 16, 2019
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 23, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-017 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 23, 2019
8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 30, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-018 accepting Accounts Payable for
CC 03-03-20
22 of 873
Page 4
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
the period ending September 30, 2019
9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 07, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-019 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 07, 2019
10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 14, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-020 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 14, 2019
11. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 21, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-021 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 21, 2019
12. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 28, 2019
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-022 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 28, 2019
13. Subject: Approval of the Library Commission's Recommendation of Jing Jing Yang for
the appointment of the new Cupertino Poet Laureate.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 20-023 approving the Library
Commission recommendation and appoint the new Cupertino Poet Laureate.
Cupertino Poet Laureate Selection Committee and past and current Laureates Ann
Muto and Kaecey McCormick introduced new Cupertino Poet Laureate Jing Jing Yang.
Mayor Scharf presented the proclamation to new Cupertino Poet Laureate Jing Jing
Yang and thanked current Poet Laureate Kaecey McCormick for her two years of
service.
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to adopt Resolution No. 20-023 approving the Library
Commission recommendation and appoint the new Cupertino Poet Laureate. The
motion carried unanimously.
14. Subject: Award of Construction Inspection Services, Plan Review Services, and Public
Works Inspection Services contracts for the Vallco SB35 project. Continued from the
February 4, 2020 meeting.
Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to
4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) to provide Construction Inspection Services and Public Works
Inspection Services for a not to exceed contract price of $7,407,710 for the Vallco SB35
project.
CC 03-03-20
23 of 873
Page 5
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to CSG Consultants, Inc.
(CSG), for a not to exceed contract price of $1,149,983 for plan review services for the
Vallco SB35 project.
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to Independent Code
Consulting, Inc. (ICCI) for a not to exceed contract price of $13,500,000 for plan review
services for the Vallco SB35 project.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke.
Jennifer Griffin- multiyear construction for Vallco, sweep roads regularly, require
sweeping trucks as part of contracts, discuss staging issues, Wolfe Rd. overcrossing.
Council asked questions and made comments.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to:
1. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to 4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) to
provide Construction Inspection Services and Public Works Inspection Services for a
not to exceed contract price of $7,407,710 for the Vallco SB35 project; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to CSG Consultants, Inc.
(CSG), for a not to exceed contract price of $1,149,983 for plan review services for the
Vallco SB35 project; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award a 3-year contract to Independent Code
Consulting, Inc. (ICCI) for a not to exceed contract price of $13,500,000 for plan review
services for the Vallco SB35 project.
The motion carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
15. Subject: Second reading of Municipal Code Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal
Code, Repealing and replacing Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 of Title 5
(Business Licenses and Regulations), adopting new policies to regulate the sale of
tobacco, such as prohibiting the sale or distribution of electronic cigare tte products,
extending the look back period for permit suspensions from 24 months to 60 months,
requiring a minimum age for individuals selling tobacco products, and amending the
administrative appeal process for permit violations.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 20-2197:
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino repealing and replacing
Chapter 5.50 of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) to regulate the sale of
tobacco products."
CC 03-03-20
24 of 873
Page 6
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of Ordinance No. 20-2197: "An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Cupertino repealing and replacing Chapter 5.50 of Title 5
(Business Licenses and Regulations) to regulate the sale of tobacco products."
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to read Ordinance No. 19-2197 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Scharf, Paul,
Chao, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Recuse: None.
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to enact Ordinance No. 19-2197 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Scharf, Paul,
Chao, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Recuse: None
16. Subject: Second reading of Municipal Code Amendment to Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 2.20.010 to remove the City Clerk’s duty to attend each closed session of the
City Council and keep closed session minutes.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 20-2198:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending City Code
Section 2.20.010 (Recordkeeping Duties-Closed Sessions) of Chapter 2.20 (City Clerk) to
Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) to remove the City Clerk’s duty to attend City
Council closed sessions and keep minutes.”
Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.
Council did not conduct the second reading and directed staff to bring back a future
agenda item for discussion and to rescind the effective Resolution No. 20-014
designating the City Manager as the city employee/officer to attend City Council closed
sessions and keep minutes from February 4, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to Chapter 19.112 - Accessory Dwelling Units;
Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 - Definitions; for Clarifications, and Consistency
with recently adopted State Bills (Application No. MCA-2018-04; Applicant: City of
Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
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. 20-2199: “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units;
Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
CC 03-03-20
25 of 873
Page 7
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 Definitions.”
Written Communications for this item included an email to Council and a presentation.
Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.
Attorney Sarah Clark from the City Attorney’s office answered questions.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Mayor Scharf opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Jennifer Griffin- pushback for State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bills, people
weren’t able to vote on them, overriding local zoning laws, SB 50 and SB 35.
Lisa Warren- redlines for architectural style, rules on building envelopes, eave depth,
covered decks and patios, lofts, setbacks between buildings, and roof designs.
Daniel Boxer (Cupertino resident)- compliance with rules on floor area ratio and
increasing size of existing structure.
Joan Meehan- occupancy limits on square footage, over density in shared common areas
and Homeowner Association (HOA) environment, maximum number of toilets per
person.
Mayor Scharf closed the public hearing.
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to:
1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and
2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 20-2199: “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units;
Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 Definitions” with the amendments as added in
the staff report and as presented on screen: “Living space” means, for the purposes of
Chapter 19.112, the same as that set forth for “living area” in California Government
Code Section 65852.2(j)(4). All attic and basement square footage proposed as part of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be limited by the maximum size allowed per Chapter
19.112.
Chao made a friendly amendment to direct staff to provide notices to the three houses
around the site. The amendment was not considered for lack of a second.
The motion carried unanimously.
CC 03-03-20
26 of 873
Page 8
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Council recessed from 9:47 p.m. to 9:53 p.m.
18. Subject: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation measures, a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program and adoption of the Cupertino Parks and
Recreation System Master Plan.
Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing, consider the recommendations of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Environmental Review Committee, and
1. Adopt Resolution No. 20-024 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 20-025 adopting the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System
Master Plan.
Written Communications for this item included a presentation.
Director of Parks and Recreation Director Randy Schwartz introduced the item.
Parks Restoration Manager Gail Seeds and MIG consultant Cindy Mendoza gave a
presentation.
Parks and Recreation Chair Neesha Tambe spoke.
Mayor Scharf opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Mahesh Pokale on behalf of Cupertino Bhubaneshwar Sister City Initiative- healing
garden initiative, getting the medicinal plants and stone statues, letter of intent for
committal.
Jennifer Griffin- changed vision of neighborhood, city, and state, need parkland on east
side, don’t change Memorial Park, purchase parkland.
Alicia Schober (Cupertino resident)- Leadership95014 proposal for all-inclusive
playground, earmarking funds to offset costs, adopt Parks Master Plan.
Jean Bedord (Cupertino resident)- meeting management issues, people have gone home,
long five-year process, approve and implement the Parks Master Plan.
Mayor Scharf closed the public hearing.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Council conducted the public hearing, and considered the recommendations of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Environmental Review Committee; and
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to adopt the item.
CC 03-03-20
27 of 873
Page 9
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Chao made a friendly amendment to 1) add a short term goal item for Lawson on page
91, under School Partnerships and 2) delete “possible” from “healing garden” on page
107, under Advancing Additional Recreation Elements.
Paul moved to amend the motion to include Councilmember Chao’s two amendments
and to add an acknowledgment identifying Interim Director of Parks and Recreation
Randy Schwartz in the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan.
Chao made an amendment to the amended motion to add Lawson as a separate bullet
point.
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to call the question. The motion failed for lack of a
two-thirds majority.
Paul moved and Chao seconded to accept Chao’s amendment to the amended motion.
The motion carried with Sinks voting no.
Final Amendments:
on page 91 under School Partnerships, add Lawson as a short-term goal as a
separate bullet point.
on page 107 under Advancing Additional Recreation Elements, delete “possible”
from “a healing garden.”
add an acknowledgment identifying Interim Director of Parks and Recreation
Randy Schwartz in the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan.
Scharf moved and Paul and seconded to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 20-024 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. The motion carried unanimously;
and
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to:
2. Adopt Resolution No. 20-025 adopting the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System
Master Plan. The motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
19. Subject: Receipt of the January 28, 2020 Public Review Draft Report from the Local
Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO), entitled "Special
Study: Governance Options, Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District," and
provide direction to staff.
CC 03-03-20
28 of 873
Page
10
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Recommended Action: Receive the report and forward it to the Parks and Recreation
Commission for their review and recommendation. Add the Rancho Rinconada
Recreation and Park District Evaluation to the FY 2019-20 City Work Program and to
the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Program.
Parks and Recreation Director Randy Schwartz reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following people spoke:
Jennifer Griffin- attended meetings, district is well run, cannot dissolve without polling
residents, supports leaving as status quo.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Council received the report; and
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to accept the recommendations for Options 1 and 2,
survey the 1,400 homeowners, and discuss with the community by forwarding to it the
Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and recommendation; and added the
Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Evaluation to the FY 2019 -20 City Work
Program and to the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Program. The motion
carried unanimously.
20. Subject: Project update, report on bids, and contract award for the McClellan Ranch
Preserve Community Garden Improvement Project (Project No. 2017-15)
Recommended Action: 1. Receive project update and report of bids; and
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to award a construction contract to
GradeTech, Inc., the apparent low bidder, for the base bid and additive alternates 1 - 3
in the total amount of Six Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Dollars
($649,300); and
3. Authorize a 10% construction contingency budget of Sixty-Four Thousand Nine
Hundred Thirty Dollars ($64,930) to address unforeseen conditions during
construction; and
4. Authorize up to Ten Thousand ($10,000) for the purchase of one 16 cubic yard
enclosed rolloff container for green waste and manure disposal.
Written Communications for this item included a presentation.
Director of Public Works Roger Lee and Parks and Recreation Director Randy Schwartz
CC 03-03-20
29 of 873
Page
11
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following people spoke:
Pamela Roper, on behalf of UC Master Gardener Program of Santa Clara County-
submitted report on plan for bid, opportunity to educate community on sustainable
gardening, drawn out process.
Jennifer Griffin- McClellan Ranch Park small, competing resources with raising animals,
allow public access to gardens, equity for east side.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Council received the project update and report of bids; and
Paul moved and Chao seconded to:
1. Authorize the Director of Public Works to award a construction contract to
GradeTech, Inc., the apparent low bidder, for the base bid and additive alternates 1 - 3 in
the total amount of Six Hundred Forty -Nine Thousand Three Hundred Dollars
($649,300); and
2. Authorize a 10% construction contingency budget of Sixty-Four Thousand Nine
Hundred Thirty Dollars ($64,930) to address unforeseen conditions during construction;
and
3. Authorize up to Ten Thousand ($10,000) for the purchase of one 16 cubic yard
enclosed rolloff container for green waste and manure disposal.
4. Parks and Recreation staff conduct outreach to schools and other groups for field trips
and tours regarding program elements as suggested by the City Council members.
The motion carried unanimously.
Councilmember Sinks left the meeting at 11:56 p.m.
21. Subject: Adopt of FY 2020-21 Council Goals
Recommended Action: Adopt FY 2020-21 Council Goals
Written Communications for this item included a presentation.
City Manager Deborah Feng gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following people spoke:
CC 03-03-20
30 of 873
Page
12
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Jennifer Griffin- local control, repercussions from housing bills, quality of life, knowing
issues when voting, notice neighbors.
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to adopt the FY 2020-21 Council Goals with the
following amendments. The motion carried unanimously with Sinks absent.
Public Engagement and Transparency
o Creating and maintaining key conversations and interactions with the
Cupertino Community.
Sustainability
o Continuing Cupertino’s commitment to building a sustainable and resilient
community for future generations.
Housing
o Contributing meaningfully and in a balanced manner to the housing inventory
in support of our community needs, including affordable housing (from
extremely low-income to moderate-income level housing) and addressing
homelessness.
Transportation
o Providing access to an efficient, safe multi-modal transportation system for our
community, and advocating for effective, equitable mass transit in the greater
region.
Improving Traffic Flow and Alleviating Congestion
Quality of Life
o Furthering the health and well-being of all Cupertino community members.
Air Quality and Noise
Public Safety
Recreation
Access to Goods and Service
22. Subject: Amendment to Council Committee assignments to appoint one primary
member and one alternate member to the County of Santa Clara Housing and
Community Development Advisory Committee.
Recommended Action: Approve amendment to Council Committee assignments to
appoint Mayor Steven Scharf as primary member and Vice Mayor Darcy Paul as
alternate member to the County of Santa Clara Housing and Community Development
Advisory Committee.
CC 03-03-20
31 of 873
Page
13
City Council Minutes February 18, 2020
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and, the seeing no speakers, closed public
comment.
Councilmembers made comments and asked questions.
Paul moved and Chao seconded to approve the amendment to Council Committee
assignments to appoint Mayor Steven Scharf as primary member and Vice Mayor Darcy
Paul as alternate member to the County of Santa Clara Housing and Community
Development Advisory Committee. The motion carried unanimously with Sinks absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED (As necessary)
COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
- added a study session on small cell issues and ordinances adopted in other cities
(Chao/Willey).
- added a joint study session with City Council and Planning Commission on state density
bonus law and City policy (Willey/Chao).
- added a study session to review the General Plan Amendment (GPA) procedure
(Chao/Paul).
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:39 p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
CC 03-03-20
32 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Treasurer’s Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2019
Accept staff report and provide recommendations.
File #:20-7088,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
33 of 873
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 3, 2020
Subject
Treasurer’s Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2019
Recommended Action
Accept staff report and provide recommendations.
Discussion
Background
The City retained Chandler Asset Management (Chandler) through a formal Request for Proposal
(RFP) process in 2018. Chandler began their work with the City in the winter of 2018, conducting
multiple meetings with staff to determine an investment structure and strategy. Using the
following assumption for the compound annualized growth rate (CAGR) of 2% over the next
three years and a continued 10% liquidity cushion, the initial core portfolio was estimated to total
at approximately $121 million, leaving the City with liquid funds ranging between $13-$20
million.
Additionally, Chandler performed a comprehensive review of the City’s investment policy.
Although the policy was sufficient for operational purposes, significant recommended changes
were made for completeness and clarification purposes. These changes were approved by City
Council on May 21, 2019. Beginning in March 2019, Chandler began forming the City’s portfolio
by purchasing agency (FHLB), corporate medium-term notes, and negotiable certificates of
deposit.
Portfolio Report Overview
In accordance with California Government Code §53646 (b)(1) “The Treasurer or chief fiscal
officer may render a quarterly report to the chief executive officer, the internal auditor, and the
legislative body of the local agency.” As of and for the month ending December 31, 2019, the City
initiated $16,341,317 in corporate, treasury, and money market fund purchases. The City also
made dispositions of $12,540,020. Ending book and market value for the portfolio was
$105,110,124 and $106,275,220, respectively.
CC 03-03-20
34 of 873
In accordance with California Government Code §53646 (b)(3), the City maintains the ability to
meets its expenditure requirements for the next six months. City’s holdings were as follows:
Wells Fargo – Workers Comp Checking $ 25,685
Wells Fargo – Regular Checking $ 19,271,164
LAIF State Pool $ 20,602,215
Total Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 39,899,064
Total Investments $106,275,220
TOTAL $146,174,284
Below are some historical quarterly comparisons for the City’s portfolio:
Total portfolio balance decreased approximately $200,000 over previous quarter to $146.2
million
Average maturity increased from 2.62 years to 2.80 years
Average purchase yield increased from 1.94% to 1.96%
Average market yield decreased from 1.84% to 1.79%
Duration increased from 2.32 to 2.80
Yield comparisons for the 1Y Treasury, 2Y Treasury, LAIF, and City average are presented below:
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%Average YieldYield Comparisons
1 Year Treasury, 2 Year Treasury, LAIF and City Average
2Y Treasury Cupertino LAIF 1Y Treasury
CC 03-03-20
35 of 873
Historical revenues, expenditures, and liquidity ratios are presented below:
Using three-year historical trend data, the City estimates revenues of $23.0 million and
expenditures of $21.8 million, resulting in an ending cash and cash equivalent balance of $41.6
million for the period ending March 31, 2020.
As the City’s portfolio becomes less liquid over time, the ratio of cash and cash equivalents to
revenues and expenditures will continue to decrease. The portfolio’s benchmark structure is
reasonably complete as we will anticipate the City’s revenues, expenditures, and cash equivalents
to flatten out moving forward. While a formal liquidity level has yet to be established or desired,
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
Mar
2017
Jun
2017
Sep
2017
Dec
2017
Mar
2018
Jun
2018
Sep
2018
Dec
2018
Mar
2019
Jun
2019
Sep
2019
Dec
2019
Revenues, Expenditures, Cash & Cash Equivalents
Revenues Expenditures Cash & Cash Equivalents
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Mar
2017
Jun
2017
Sep
2017
Dec
2017
Mar
2018
Jun
2018
Sep
2018
Dec
2018
Mar
2019
Jun
2019
Sep
2019
Dec
2019
Liquidity Ratios
Revenues Expenditures
CC 03-03-20
36 of 873
significant and consistent fluctuations in the ratio may provide indication that additional funds
could be invested or perhaps that investments should be liquidated.
Using three-year historical trend data for each of the City’s revenue and expenditures line -items
and applied to the FY 2019-20 Adopted Budget, the City estimates the following cash flow forecast
for FY 2019-20:
The purpose of this cash flow forecast is to illustrate the timing of the City’s revenues and
expenditures throughout a fiscal year using historical trend data. The first quarter of the fiscal
year experiences expenditures exceeding revenues which is reasonable since the City begins
receiving its property tax distributions in November and again in April of the respective fiscal
year. The month of June tends to experience higher activities, particularly expenditures, due to
the year-end close/accrual process. From one fiscal year to the next, the City typically incurs one-
time special project or capital expenditure costs and the timing of these costs is more difficult to
pinpoint to a particular month.
From a cash flow analysis perspective, the Adopted and Amended Budgets are efficient planning
tools in determining cash flow needs for a single fiscal year. If a budget is adopted at a position
in which revenues and expenditures are balanced, then it’s reasonable to conclude cash flow will
unlikely to be of a concern. Beyond one fiscal year, a City requires a multi-year forward-looking
forecast using historical as well as prospective assumptions. This forecasting model is
incorporated and presented to the City’s Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee as well as the City
Council as part of the City’s Adopted Budget process.
Prepared by: Zach Korach, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services
Approved by: Deborah L. Feng, City Manager
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
FY 2019-20 Cash Flow Forecast
Revenues Expenditures
CC 03-03-20
37 of 873
CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. | 800.317.4747 | www.chandlerasset.com
INVESTMENT REPORT
Period Ending December 31, 2019
City of Cupertino
CC 03-03-20
38 of 873
SECTION 1 Economic Update
SECTION 2 Account Profile
SECTION 3 Portfolio Holdings
SECTION 4 Transactions
Table of Contents As of December 31, 2019
1
CC 03-03-20
39 of 873
SECTION |Section 1 |Economic Update
2
CC 03-03-20
40 of 873
Economic Update
▪
▪
▪
Economicgrowth has slowed overthe past yearand the consensus forecast calls for GDP growth of 1.8%in 2020 versus 2.3%
in 2019.We are not anticipating arecession within our 6-month outlook horizon.We believe the impact of monetary policy
on economicgrowth is somewhat lagged, and the more accommodative monetary policy stance of the Federal Reserve and
otherglobal central banks throughout 2019 should provide atailwind for an ongoing slow economicgrowth environment in
2020.However,an uncertain outlook on the future path of global central bank policy, lingering uncertainty about trade
policy and Brexit, and the upcoming US presidential election potentially sets the stage for a continued volatile financial
market environment this year. The recent confirmation of aphase one trade deal is consistent with our view that there will
be modest incremental progress on trade in front of the presidential election cycle.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) kept the target fed funds rate unchanged in December in a range of 1.50%-
1.75%. The vote to keep policy unchanged was unanimous and the Fed's quarterly update on their Summary of Economic
Projections was little changed from the September 2019 forecast. Notably the Fed's forecast calls for no change to the fed
funds rate in 2020. We believe the hurdle rate to tighten policy remains high, as market-based measures of inflation are still
too low. Conversely,if market-based inflation metrics fail to improve, and/or the domestic or global economy experiences
an exogenous shock, we believe the Fed has left the door open for additional policy accommodation.
The Treasury yield curve steepened slightly in December. The 2-year Treasury yield decreased about 4 basis points to 1.57%,
the 5-year Treasury yield increased almost seven basis points to 1.69%, and the 10-year Treasury yield increased about
fourteen basis points to 1.92%. We believe the increase in longer-term yields were driven by more favorable developments
with regard to global trade and Brexit.
3
CC 03-03-20
41 of 873
Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Labor
Employment
U.S. nonfarm payrolls rose by 145,000 in December, below expectations of 160,000. Payrolls for Octoberand Novemberwere revised down by a
total of 14,000.On a trailing 3-month and 6-month basis, payrolls increased an average of about 184,000 and 189,000 per month, respectively.
The unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.5% and the participation rate held steady at 63.2%. A broader measure of unemployment called
the U-6, which includes those who are marginally attached to the laborforce and employed part time for economicreasons, declined to 6.7%in
December from 6.9%in November. Wages edged up 0.1%in December, below expectations of 0.3%,but the November increase in wages was
revised up slightly to 0.3% from 0.2%. The average workweek was unchanged at 34.3 hours.On a year-over-year basis, wages were up 2.9%in
December, versus up 3.1% in November.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
MOM Change In (000's)Nonfarm Payroll (000's)
Non-farm Payroll (000's)
3 month average (000's)
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
11.0%
Unemployment Rate
Underemployment Rate (U6)
Unemployment Rate (U3)Rate (%)4
CC 03-03-20
42 of 873
Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Commerce
Inflation
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was up 2.3% year-over-year in December,up from 2.1%in November. Core CPI (CPI less food and energy) was
up 2.3% year-over-year in December, unchanged from November. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index was up 1.5% year-over-
year in Novemberversus up 1.4% year-over-year in October. Core PCE, which is the Fed's primary inflation gauge, was up 1.6% year-over-year in
November versus 1.7% year-over-year in October. Core PCE softened and remains below the Fed’s 2.0% inflation target.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)
PCE Price Deflator YOY % Change
PCE Core Deflator YOY % ChangeYOY( %) Change0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
CPI YOY % Change
Core CPI YOY % ChangeYOY( %) Change5
CC 03-03-20
43 of 873
On a year-over-year basis, retail sales were up 5.8%in December versus 3.3%in November.On a month-over-month basis, retail sales
excluding autos and gas rose 0.5%in December, slightly ahead of expectations of 0.4%. The ConsumerConfidence Index was nearly unchanged
at 126.5 in December versus 126.8 in November. Overall, consumer spending trends remain favorable and consumer confidence remains strong.
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: The Conference Board
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
Retail Sales YOY % Change
YOY (%) Change110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
Index LevelConsumer Confidence
Consumer
6
CC 03-03-20
44 of 873
Source: The Conference Board Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Economic Activity
The Leading Economic Index (LEI) fell 0.3%in December following a 0.1% increase in November. The index has declined in four out of the last
five months, and on a year-over-yearbasis, the LEI is up just 0.1%. According to the Conference Board, the LEI is consistent with 2.0% economic
growth through early 2020.The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) declined to -0.35 in Decemberfrom +0.41 in November. However,
on a 3-month moving average basis, the CFNAI improved to -0.23 in December from -0.31 in November. The 3-month moving average is
consistent with sub-par economic growth.
-0.70
-0.50
-0.30
-0.10
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)3 Month Average-0.4%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
Leading Economic Indicators (LEI)MOM ( %) Change7
CC 03-03-20
45 of 873
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: S&P
Housing
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
MOM Change (In Thousands of Units)Housing Starts
Multi Family Housing Starts
Single Family Housing Starts
1.5%
2.5%
3.5%
4.5%
5.5%
6.5%
7.5%
S&P/Case -Shiller 20 City Composite Home Price Index YOY( %) ChangeHousing starts rose 16.9%in December to a 1.608 million annualized rate, the highest rate since December 2006.Single-family starts jumped
11.2%in December to an annualized rate of 1,055,000, while multi-family starts surged 29.8%to an annualized rate of 553,000. Although better
than average weather may have been a contributing factor for the December gains, the underlying trends suggest low mortgage rates and a
stronglabor marketcontinue to drive housing activity. According to the Case-Shiller 20-City home price index, home prices were up 2.2% year-
over-year in October, versus up 2.1% year-over-year in September. The year-over-yearpace of price appreciation remains low but suggests that
pricing in the sector may be gaining momentum.
8
CC 03-03-20
46 of 873
Source: Institute for Supply Management Source: Federal Reserve
Manufacturing
The Institute forSupply Management (ISM) manufacturing index decreased to 47.2 in Decemberfrom 48.1 in November. The reading was below
expectations and suggests the manufacturing sector remains in contraction. The Industrial Production was down 1.0% year-over-year in
December versus down 0.7% year-over-year in November.On a month-over-month basis, the index declined 0.3%in December,in line with
expectations, following a 0.8% increase in November. The manufacturing component of the index rose 0.2%in December, following a 1.0%
increase in November. Manufacturing volumes bounced higher in November following the end of the GM strike, and the modest gain in
December is a positive signal for the sector which remains underpressure. Capacity Utilization decreased to 77.0%in Decemberfrom 77.4%in
November, and remains below the long-run average of 79.8% indicating there is still excess capacity for growth.
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
Institute of Supply Management Purchasing Manager
Index
EXPANDING
CONTRACTING
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Industrial Production
YOY( %) Change9
CC 03-03-20
47 of 873
Source: US Department of Commerce Source: US Department of Commerce
12/18 3/19 6/19 9/19
1.0% 0.8% 3.0% 2.1%
0.5% 1.1% -1.2% -0.2%
-0.4% 0.7% -0.7% -0.1%
0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2%
-0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1%
1.1% 3.1% 2.0% 2.1%
Total
Components of GDP
Net Exports and Imports
Personal Consumption
Expenditures
Gross Private Domestic
Investment
Federal Government
Expenditures
State and Local (Consumption and
Gross Investment)0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
GDP QOQ % Change
GDP YOY % Change
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
According to the third estimate, third quarter 2019 GDP grew at a2.1% annualized rate. This follows growth of 3.1%in the first quarter, and 2.0%
in the second quarter on 2019.Third quarter growth was fueled by consumer spending which contributed 2.1%to GDP in the quarter, while
business investment and exports were a drag on the economy. The consensus estimate for the fourth quarter signals a slowdown to 2.0%
growth. The consensus forecast calls for GDP growth of 1.6% in the current quarter and 1.8% for the full year 2020.
10
CC 03-03-20
48 of 873
Federal Reserve
Source: Federal Reserve Source: Bloomberg
3,700,000
3,800,000
3,900,000
4,000,000
4,100,000
4,200,000
4,300,000
4,400,000
4,500,000
Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Assets
In$ millions0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
Long Run Federal Funds Rates
FOMC DOTS Median of the Longer Run Projections
Effective Federal Funds Rate
Yield (%)The FOMC cut the fed funds rate by 25 basis points three times in 2019 to a range of 1.50-1.75%.In October, the Fed started to increase its
purchases of short-term Treasury securities in order to provide sufficient liquidity to the banking system and money markets. Fed ChairPowell
has emphasized that the purchases are aimed at controlling the level of short-term lending rates but are not a form of economic stimulus.
Nevertheless, we believe an expansion of the Fed's balance is supportive of ongoing economic growth.
11
CC 03-03-20
49 of 873
Source: Bloomberg Source: Bloomberg
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
US Treasury Note Yields
2-Year
5-Year
10-YearYield (%)0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
US Treasury Yield Curve
Dec-19
Sep-19
Dec-18Yield (%)Bond Yields
Treasury yields declined meaningfully in 2019.At year-end, the 3-month T-bill yield was down 81 basis points, the 2-Year Treasury yield was
down 92 basis points, and the 10-Year Treasury yield was down 77 basis points.We believe the year-over-year decline in long-term Treasury
yields largely reflects adecline in global economicgrowth and inflation expectations, while the decline in shorter-term rates is in line with the
Fed's three 25 basis point rate cuts in 2019.
12
CC 03-03-20
50 of 873
Section 2|SECTION |Section 2 |Account Profile
13
CC 03-03-20
51 of 873
Objectives
Chandler Asset Management Performance Objective
The performance objective for the portfolio is to earn a total rate of return through a market cycle that is
equal to or above the return on the benchmark index.
Investment Objectives
The City of Cupertino’s investment objectives,in order of priority,are to provide safety to ensure the
preservation of capital in the overall portfolio,provide sufficient liquidity for cash needs and a market rate
of return consistent with the investment program.
Strategy
In order to achieve these objectives,the portfolio invests in high quality fixed incomes securities
consistent with the investment policy and California Government Code.
As of December 31, 2019
14
CC 03-03-20
52 of 873
Compliance As of December 31, 2019
Category Standard Comment
Treasury Issues No Limitation Complies
Agency Issues 25% per Agency/GSE issuer; 20% max agency callable securities; Issued by Federal Agencies or U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprise
obligations.Complies
Supranational "AA" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 10% max per issuer; USD denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated
obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by IBRD, IFC, or IADB.Complies
Municipal Securities
"A" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Obligations of the City, State of California, and any
local agency within the State of California; Obligations of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds
payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department,
board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states in addition to California.
Complies
Corporate Medium Term Notes "A" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by corporations organized and operating within
the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S.Complies
Asset Backed/ Mortgage Backed/
Collateralized Mortgage
Obligation
"AA" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 20% maximum; 5% max per issuer on Asset-Backed or Commercial Mortgage security;
There is no issuer limitation on any Mortgage security where the issuer is the U.S. Treasury or a Federal Agency/GSE .Complies
Negotiable Certificates of
Deposit (NCDs)
No rating required if amount of the NCD is insured up to the FDIC limit; If above FDIC insured limit, requires "A-1" short-term rated or
"A" long-term rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by nationally or state chartered banks,
state or federal savings associations, or state or federal credit unions, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a
foreign bank.
Complies
Certificates of Deposit
(CDs)/Time Deposit (TDs)
30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Certificates of Deposit, Time Deposit, non-negotiable, and collateralized in accordance with
California Government Code.Complies
Banker’s Acceptances "A-1" short-term rated or better by a NRSRO; or "A" long-term rating category or better by a NRSRO; 40% maximum; 5% max per
issuer; 180 days max maturity Complies
Commercial Paper
"A-1" short term rated or better a NRSRO; "A" long-term issuer rating category or better by a NRSRO; 25% maximum; 5% max per
issuer; 270 days max maturity; Issued by corporations organized and operating in the U.S. with assets > $500 million; 10% max
outstanding paper of the issuing corporation.
Complies
Money Market Funds
20% maximum; Daily money market funds administered for or by trustees, paying agents and custodian banks contracted by a City
of Cupertino as allowed under California Government Code; Only funds holding U.S. Treasury obligations, Government agency
obligations or repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury or Government agency obligations can be utilized.
Complies
City of Cupertino
Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy.
15
CC 03-03-20
53 of 873
Compliance As of December 31, 2019
Category Standard Comment
Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF)Maximum amount permitted by LAIF; Not used by investment adviser Complies
Repurchase Agreements 1 year max maturity; 102% collateralized; A PSA Master Repurchase Agreement is required between City of Cupertino and the
broke/dealer or financial institution for all repurchase agreements; Not used by investment adviser Complies
Prohibited Securities
Reverse Repurchase Agreement; Common stocks; Long-term (> 5 years maturity) notes and bonds; Special circumstances arise that
necessitate purchase of securities beyond the 5-year limitation. On such occasions, request must be approved by City Council prior
to purchase; Futures/Options; Inverse floaters; Ranges notes, Mortgage-derived, Interest-only strips; Zero interest accrual securities;
Purchasing/selling securities on margin; Foreign currency denominated securities.
Complies
Minimum Budgeted Operating
Expenditures in Short Term
Investments
Minimum 6 months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected
disbursements Complies
Max Per Issuer 5% per issuer, unless otherwise specified in the policy Complies
Maximum maturity 5 years Complies
City of Cupertino
Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy.
16
CC 03-03-20
54 of 873
Portfolio Characteristics
City of Cupertino
12/31/2019 9/30/2019
Benchmark*Portfolio Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs)2.65 2.80 2.62
Average Modified Duration 2.53 2.46 2.32
Average Purchase Yield n/a 1.96%1.94%
Average Market Yield 1.62%1.79%1.84%
Average Quality**AAA AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1
Total Market Value 106,275,220 105,780,960
*ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index
**Benchmark is a blended rating of S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch. Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively.
As of December 31, 2019
17
CC 03-03-20
55 of 873
City of Cupertino
Sector Distribution
ABS
8.8%
Agency
28.5%
CMO
3.0%Foreign
Corporate
4.2%
Money Market
Fund FI
5.9%
Negotiable CD
3.8%
US Corporate
21.4%
US Treasury
21.9%
Commercial
Paper
1.9%
Municipal Bonds
0.7%
December 31, 2019 September 30, 2019
ABS
6.8%
Agency
31.3%
CMO
2.0%Foreign
Corporate
3.0%
Money Market
Fund FI
9.0%
Negotiable CD
5.8%
US Corporate
20.2%
US Treasury
22.1%
As of December 31, 2019
18
CC 03-03-20
56 of 873
Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio
Government of United States US Treasury 21.90%
Federal Home Loan Bank Agency 15.15%
Federal National Mortgage Association Agency 7.59%
Wells Fargo 100% Treasury MMKT Fund Money Market Fund FI 5.86%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Agency 5.71%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp CMO 2.95%
Honda ABS ABS 2.45%
John Deere ABS ABS 2.29%
Nissan ABS ABS 2.20%
Nordea Bank ABP New York Negotiable CD 1.92%
Toronto Dominion Holdings Negotiable CD 1.92%
MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Commercial Paper 1.87%
Air Products & Chemicals US Corporate 1.68%
HSBC Holdings PLC Foreign Corporate 1.49%
Charles Schwab Corp/The US Corporate 1.46%
Toronto Dominion Holdings Foreign Corporate 1.45%
IBM Corp US Corporate 1.43%
Toyota ABS ABS 1.43%
Honda Motor Corporation US Corporate 1.30%
Bank of America Corp US Corporate 1.28%
JP Morgan Chase & Co US Corporate 1.26%
Royal Bank of Canada Foreign Corporate 1.26%
Wells Fargo Corp US Corporate 1.26%
US Bancorp US Corporate 1.20%
PNC Financial Services Group US Corporate 1.16%
Bank of New York US Corporate 0.99%
Wal-Mart Stores US Corporate 0.99%
Deere & Company US Corporate 0.97%
Toyota Motor Corp US Corporate 0.97%
General Dynamics Corp US Corporate 0.96%
Apple Inc US Corporate 0.96%
Oracle Corp US Corporate 0.95%
State Street Bank US Corporate 0.95%
Chubb Corporation US Corporate 0.81%
Paccar Financial US Corporate 0.78%
State of California Municipal Bonds 0.72%
Verizon Owner Trust ABS 0.48%
TOTAL 100.00%
Issuers
City of Cupertino –Account #10659
As of December 31, 2019
19
CC 03-03-20
57 of 873
AAA AA A <A NR
12/31/19 16.3%51.4%22.6%0.0%9.6%
09/30/19 16.1%55.4%20.2%0.0%8.3%
Source: S&P Ratings
December 31, 2019 vs. September 30, 2019
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
AAA AA A <A NR
12/31/2019 9/30/2019
Quality Distribution
City of Cupertino
As of December 31, 2019
20
CC 03-03-20
58 of 873
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+
City of Cupertino ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index
Portfolio Compared to the Benchmark as of December 31, 2019
0 -0.25 0.25 -0.50 0.50 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5+
Portfolio 9.4% 6.6% 6.6% 16.3% 19.2% 23.5% 18.4% 0.0%
Benchmark*0.3% 0.1% 1.8% 34.9% 28.0% 20.4% 14.4% 0.0%
*ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index
Duration Distribution
City of Cupertino
As of December 31, 2019
21
CC 03-03-20
59 of 873
Gradual Strategy Shift As of December 31, 2019
■Chandler has been tactical in implementing the new strategy because of the rising rate environment.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19
City of Cupertino Strategy Implementation
ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index Cupertino
24%22%
49%
61%64%
82%88%
96%94%
104%99%100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19
City of Cupertino Duration as a Percentage of Benchmark Duration
22
CC 03-03-20
60 of 873
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
3 months Since Inception
City of Cupertino Gross of Fee City of Cupertino Net of Fee ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index
Total Rate of Return Since Inception 01/31/2019
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN Latest 3 months Since Inception
City of Cupertino Gross of Fee 0.49%3.48%
City of Cupertino Net of Fee 0.47%3.40%
ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index 0.36%3.85%
Investment Performance
City of Cupertino
Total rate of return:A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time.It is the internal rate of return,which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the
ending value;it includes interest earnings,realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio.
As of December 31, 2019
23
CC 03-03-20
61 of 873
Purchase Yield as of 12/31/2019 = 1.96%
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
Percent (%)Historical Average Purchase Yield
City of Cupertino
As of December 31, 2019
24
CC 03-03-20
62 of 873
SECTION |Section 3 |Portfolio Holdings
25
CC 03-03-20
63 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
43815HAC1 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3 A3
2.950% Due 08/22/2022
1,600,000.00 09/16/2019
1.45%
1,616,875.00
1,615,217.49
101.01
1.91%
1,616,124.80
1,311.11
1.52%
907.31
Aaa / NR
AAA
2.64
0.95
89238TAD5 Toyota Auto Receivables Trust 2018-B A3
2.960% Due 09/15/2022
1,500,000.00 09/10/2019
1.15%
1,517,519.53
1,515,750.04
100.98
1.89%
1,514,727.00
1,973.33
1.43%
(1,023.04)
Aaa / AAA
NR
2.71
0.90
65479GAD1 Nissan Auto Receivables Trust 2018-B A3
3.060% Due 03/15/2023
1,500,000.00 09/16/2019
1.37%
1,521,210.93
1,519,462.78
101.35
1.92%
1,520,304.00
2,040.00
1.43%
841.22
Aaa / AAA
NR
3.21
1.16
47789JAD8 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A3
2.910% Due 07/17/2023
1,400,000.00 Various
1.92%
1,427,492.19
1,425,304.91
101.44
1.98%
1,420,204.80
1,810.66
1.34%
(5,100.11)
Aaa / NR
AAA
3.55
1.51
43815NAC8 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 A3
1.780% Due 08/15/2023
990,000.00 Various
1.93%
988,335.77
988,443.13
99.77
1.89%
987,752.70
783.20
0.93%
(690.43)
Aaa / AAA
NR
3.62
2.16
477870AC3 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B A3
2.210% Due 12/15/2023
1,000,000.00 08/27/2019
1.79%
1,009,257.81
1,008,520.25
100.65
1.92%
1,006,541.00
982.22
0.95%
(1,979.25)
Aaa / NR
AAA
3.96
2.19
92348AAA3 Verizon Owner Trust 2019-C A1A
1.940% Due 04/22/2024
515,000.00 10/01/2019
1.95%
514,960.29
514,962.33
99.91
1.99%
514,513.84
305.28
0.48%
(448.49)
NR / AAA
AAA
4.31
2.19
65479JAD5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2019-C A3
1.930% Due 07/15/2024
810,000.00 10/16/2019
1.94%
809,957.23
809,958.96
100.04
1.92%
810,321.57
694.80
0.76%
362.61
Aaa / AAA
NR
4.54
2.45
TOTAL ABS 9,315,000.00 1.62%
9,405,608.75
9,397,619.89 1.92%
9,390,489.71
9,900.60
8.85%
(7,130.18)
Aaa / AAA
Aaa
3.38
1.52
Agency
313384SM2 FHLB Discount Note
1.570% Due 01/31/2020
1,700,000.00 12/30/2019
1.59%
1,697,627.56
1,697,775.84
99.87
1.59%
1,697,775.84
0.00
1.60%
0.00
P-1 / A-1+
F-1+
0.08
0.08
3134G9MW4 FHLMC Callable Note 1X 5/26/2017
1.350% Due 05/26/2020
975,000.00 05/31/2016
1.35%
975,000.00
975,000.00
99.88
1.65%
973,810.50
1,279.69
0.92%
(1,189.50)
Aaa / AA+
AAA
0.40
0.40
3134G9SK4 FHLMC Callable Note 1X 6/30/2017
1.500% Due 06/30/2020
2,000,000.00 06/30/2016
1.50%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
99.94
1.63%
1,998,746.00
83.33
1.88%
(1,254.00)
Aaa / AA+
AAA
0.50
0.50
3136G3QQ1 FNMA Callable Note 1X 5/25/2017
1.500% Due 11/25/2020
3,000,000.00 05/25/2016
1.50%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
99.89
1.63%
2,996,586.00
4,500.00
2.82%
(3,414.00)
NR / NR
AAA
0.90
0.89
313378JP7 FHLB Note
2.375% Due 09/10/2021
2,000,000.00 09/06/2019
1.57%
2,031,540.00
2,026,628.03
101.30
1.60%
2,025,906.00
14,645.83
1.92%
(722.03)
Aaa / AA+
AAA
1.70
1.64
313376C94 FHLB Note
2.625% Due 12/10/2021
1,325,000.00 01/19/2017
1.90%
1,369,559.75
1,342,689.17
101.86
1.65%
1,349,623.80
2,028.91
1.27%
6,934.63
Aaa / AA+
AAA
1.95
1.89
3137EADB2 FHLMC Note
2.375% Due 01/13/2022
1,500,000.00 06/21/2019
1.84%
1,520,100.00
1,515,989.61
101.54
1.60%
1,523,122.50
16,625.00
1.45%
7,132.89
Aaa / AA+
AAA
2.04
1.96
As of December 31, 2019
26
CC 03-03-20
64 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
313380GJ0 FHLB Note
2.000% Due 09/09/2022
2,000,000.00 10/10/2019
1.55%
2,025,400.00
2,023,442.48
101.09
1.58%
2,021,834.00
12,444.44
1.91%
(1,608.48)
Aaa / AA+
NR
2.69
2.60
3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note
2.750% Due 06/19/2023
1,500,000.00 06/21/2019
1.83%
1,553,100.00
1,546,134.27
103.86
1.60%
1,557,897.00
1,375.00
1.47%
11,762.73
Aaa / AA+
AAA
3.47
3.30
3130A3DL5 FHLB Note
2.375% Due 09/08/2023
2,000,000.00 09/06/2019
1.52%
2,066,320.00
2,061,141.59
102.55
1.66%
2,051,028.00
14,909.72
1.94%
(10,113.59)
Aaa / AA+
NR
3.69
3.50
3135G0U43 FNMA Note
2.875% Due 09/12/2023
1,500,000.00 06/21/2019
1.89%
1,559,805.00
1,552,392.44
104.39
1.65%
1,565,785.50
13,057.29
1.49%
13,393.06
Aaa / AA+
AAA
3.70
3.48
3130A0F70 FHLB Note
3.375% Due 12/08/2023
1,500,000.00 04/29/2019
2.36%
1,565,940.00
1,556,301.71
106.23
1.73%
1,593,414.00
3,234.38
1.50%
37,112.29
Aaa / AA+
AAA
3.94
3.69
3130A0XE5 FHLB Note
3.250% Due 03/08/2024
1,500,000.00 03/28/2019
2.27%
1,568,115.00
1,557,629.97
106.35
1.67%
1,595,308.50
15,302.08
1.52%
37,678.53
Aaa / AA+
NR
4.19
3.89
3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note
2.875% Due 06/14/2024
1,500,000.00 06/18/2019
1.96%
1,564,890.20
1,557,909.70
105.00
1.71%
1,574,931.00
2,036.46
1.48%
17,021.30
Aaa / AA+
NR
4.46
4.18
3135G0V75 FNMA Note
1.750% Due 07/02/2024
1,500,000.00 07/16/2019
1.96%
1,484,895.00
1,486,295.46
100.11
1.72%
1,501,710.00
12,614.58
1.42%
15,414.54
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.51
4.28
3130A2UW4 FHLB Note
2.875% Due 09/13/2024
2,000,000.00 09/13/2019
1.79%
2,103,380.00
2,097,315.49
105.23
1.71%
2,104,660.00
17,250.00
2.00%
7,344.51
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.71
4.37
3135G0W66 FNMA Note
1.625% Due 10/15/2024
1,975,000.00 Various
1.73%
1,965,802.75
1,965,941.84
99.54
1.72%
1,965,995.98
6,507.90
1.86%
54.14
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.79
4.57
TOTAL Agency 29,475,000.00 1.75%
30,051,475.26
29,962,587.60 1.65%
30,098,134.62
137,894.61
28.45%
135,547.02
Aaa / AA+
Aaa
2.78
2.64
CMO
3137B4WB8 FHLMC K033 A2
3.060% Due 07/25/2023
1,000,000.00 08/13/2019
1.18%
1,037,656.25
1,034,045.02
103.31
2.01%
1,033,070.00
510.00
0.97%
(975.02)
Aaa / NR
NR
3.57
3.23
3137B5JM6 FHLMC K034 A2
3.531% Due 07/25/2023
1,000,000.00 09/26/2019
2.00%
1,053,867.19
1,050,309.56
104.89
2.00%
1,048,913.00
2,942.50
0.99%
(1,396.56)
NR / NR
AAA
3.57
3.24
3137B7MZ9 FHLMC K036 A2
3.527% Due 10/25/2023
1,000,000.00 08/19/2019
1.92%
1,061,914.06
1,056,554.94
105.09
2.03%
1,050,884.00
587.83
0.99%
(5,670.94)
Aaa / NR
AAA
3.82
3.42
TOTAL CMO 3,000,000.00 1.70%
3,153,437.50
3,140,909.52 2.01%
3,132,867.00
4,040.33
2.95%
(8,042.52)
Aaa / NR
Aaa
3.65
3.30
As of December 31, 2019
27
CC 03-03-20
65 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
Commercial Paper
62479LDG7 MUFG Bank Ltd Discount CP
1.910% Due 04/16/2020
2,000,000.00 11/18/2019
1.95%
1,984,083.33
1,988,752.22
99.44
1.95%
1,988,752.22
0.00
1.87%
0.00
P-1 / A-1
NR
0.29
0.29
TOTAL Commercial Paper 2,000,000.00 1.95%
1,984,083.33
1,988,752.22 1.95%
1,988,752.22
0.00
1.87%
0.00
P-1 / A-1
NR
0.29
0.29
Foreign Corporate
404280BS7 HSBC Holdings PLC Callable Note 1X 5/18/2023
3.950% Due 05/18/2024
1,500,000.00 Various
2.49%
1,572,790.00
1,568,225.02
105.22
2.31%
1,578,238.50
7,077.09
1.49%
10,013.48
A2 / A
A+
4.38
4.02
89114QCA4 Toronto Dominion Bank Note
2.650% Due 06/12/2024
1,500,000.00 09/11/2019
2.24%
1,527,255.00
1,525,526.02
102.44
2.07%
1,536,589.50
2,097.92
1.45%
11,063.48
Aa3 / A
AA-
4.45
4.18
78013XZU5 Royal Bank of Canada Note
2.550% Due 07/16/2024
1,300,000.00 Various
2.17%
1,321,985.18
1,321,131.71
101.54
2.19%
1,320,005.70
15,193.76
1.26%
(1,126.01)
A2 / A
AA
4.55
4.22
TOTAL Foreign Corporate 4,300,000.00 2.31%
4,422,030.18
4,414,882.75 2.19%
4,434,833.70
24,368.77
4.20%
19,950.95
A1 / A
AA-
4.46
4.13
Money Market Fund FI
94975H270 Wells Fargo 100% Treasury Money Mkt Fund 6,224,767.49 Various
1.14%
6,224,767.49
6,224,767.49
1.00
1.14%
6,224,767.49
0.00
5.86%
0.00
Aaa / AAA
NR
0.00
0.00
TOTAL Money Market Fund FI 6,224,767.49 1.14%
6,224,767.49
6,224,767.49 1.14%
6,224,767.49
0.00
5.86%
0.00
Aaa / AAA
NR
0.00
0.00
Municipal Bonds
13063DRK6 California St TE-GO
2.400% Due 10/01/2024
755,000.00 10/16/2019
1.91%
772,342.35
771,679.03
101.44
2.08%
765,864.45
3,372.33
0.72%
(5,814.58)
Aa2 / AA-
AA
4.76
4.45
TOTAL Municipal Bonds 755,000.00 1.91%
772,342.35
771,679.03 2.08%
765,864.45
3,372.33
0.72%
(5,814.58)
Aa2 / AA-
AA
4.76
4.45
Negotiable CD
65558TFW0 Nordea Bank ABP New York Yankee CD
2.640% Due 03/23/2020
2,000,000.00 03/21/2019
2.64%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
100.00
2.64%
2,000,000.00
41,946.67
1.92%
0.00
P-1 / A-1+
F-1+
0.23
0.22
89114MYP6 Toronto Dominion Bank Yankee CD
2.620% Due 04/02/2020
2,000,000.00 03/21/2019
2.62%
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
100.00
2.62%
2,000,000.00
41,628.89
1.92%
0.00
P-1 / A-1+
F-1+
0.25
0.25
TOTAL Negotiable CD 4,000,000.00 2.63%
4,000,000.00
4,000,000.00 2.63%
4,000,000.00
83,575.56
3.84%
0.00
Aaa / AAA
Aaa
0.24
0.24
As of December 31, 2019
28
CC 03-03-20
66 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
US Corporate
00440EAT4 Chubb INA Holdings Inc Callable Note Cont 10/3/2020
2.300% Due 11/03/2020
850,000.00 03/05/2019
2.90%
841,840.00
845,872.95
100.35
1.82%
853,010.70
3,149.72
0.81%
7,137.75
A3 / A
A
0.84
0.75
369550BE7 General Dynamics Corp Note
3.000% Due 05/11/2021
1,000,000.00 03/11/2019
2.76%
1,004,920.00
1,003,089.01
101.68
1.74%
1,016,829.00
4,166.67
0.96%
13,739.99
A2 / A+
NR
1.36
1.33
857477AV5 State Street Bank Note
1.950% Due 05/19/2021
1,000,000.00 Various
2.65%
986,055.00
990,648.54
100.21
1.80%
1,002,073.00
2,275.00
0.95%
11,424.46
A1 / A
AA-
1.38
1.36
68389XBK0 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/15/2021
1.900% Due 09/15/2021
1,000,000.00 04/11/2019
2.66%
982,320.00
987,540.00
100.21
1.77%
1,002,095.00
5,594.44
0.95%
14,555.00
A1 / A+
A
1.71
1.59
89236TDP7 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note
2.600% Due 01/11/2022
1,000,000.00 03/05/2019
2.89%
992,200.00
994,447.84
101.51
1.84%
1,015,125.00
12,277.78
0.97%
20,677.16
Aa3 / AA-
A+
2.03
1.95
95000U2B8 Wells Fargo & Company Note
2.625% Due 07/22/2022
1,300,000.00 Various
2.68%
1,297,365.00
1,298,343.90
101.49
2.02%
1,319,427.20
15,071.88
1.26%
21,083.30
A2 / A-
A+
2.56
2.44
69353RFE3 PNC Bank Callable Note Cont 6/28/2022
2.450% Due 07/28/2022
1,200,000.00 06/20/2019
2.16%
1,210,236.00
1,208,458.66
101.37
1.88%
1,216,395.60
12,495.00
1.16%
7,936.94
A2 / A
A+
2.58
2.39
44932HAC7 IBM Credit Corp Note
2.200% Due 09/08/2022
1,500,000.00 Various
2.88%
1,467,755.00
1,473,988.64
100.79
1.90%
1,511,794.50
10,358.34
1.43%
37,805.86
A2 / A
NR
2.69
2.58
48128BAB7 JP Morgan Chase & Co Callable Note 1X 1/15/2022
2.972% Due 01/15/2023
1,300,000.00 Various
2.92%
1,299,224.00
1,299,778.44
101.89
2.02%
1,324,607.70
17,815.49
1.26%
24,829.26
A2 / A-
AA-
3.04
1.95
808513AT2 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 12/25/2022
2.650% Due 01/25/2023
1,500,000.00 Various
2.53%
1,504,955.00
1,504,978.47
101.96
1.97%
1,529,388.00
17,225.00
1.46%
24,409.53
A2 / A
A
3.07
2.83
24422ETG4 John Deere Capital Corp Note
2.800% Due 03/06/2023
1,000,000.00 03/28/2019
2.60%
1,007,580.00
1,006,114.60
102.62
1.95%
1,026,222.00
8,944.44
0.97%
20,107.40
A2 / A
A
3.18
3.01
06406RAG2 Bank of NY Mellon Corp Note
3.500% Due 04/28/2023
1,000,000.00 03/05/2019
3.15%
1,013,650.00
1,010,943.46
104.92
1.97%
1,049,150.00
6,125.00
0.99%
38,206.54
A1 / A
AA-
3.33
3.12
037833AK6 Apple Inc Note
2.400% Due 05/03/2023
1,000,000.00 03/11/2019
2.79%
984,840.00
987,787.78
101.71
1.87%
1,017,064.00
3,866.67
0.96%
29,276.22
Aa1 / AA+
NR
3.34
3.19
931142EK5 Wal-Mart Stores Callable Note Cont 5/26/2023
3.400% Due 06/26/2023
1,000,000.00 03/13/2019
2.80%
1,023,630.00
1,019,129.05
105.15
1.83%
1,051,499.00
472.22
0.99%
32,369.95
Aa2 / AA
AA
3.49
3.22
69371RP59 Paccar Financial Corp Note
3.400% Due 08/09/2023
435,000.00 06/18/2019
2.56%
449,315.85
447,468.34
104.52
2.09%
454,671.57
5,833.83
0.43%
7,203.23
A1 / A+
NR
3.61
3.35
02665WCQ2 American Honda Finance Note
3.625% Due 10/10/2023
1,300,000.00 Various
2.76%
1,345,306.00
1,339,449.94
105.60
2.07%
1,372,849.40
10,603.13
1.30%
33,399.46
A2 / A
NR
3.78
3.51
As of December 31, 2019
29
CC 03-03-20
67 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
06051GHF9 Bank of America Corp Callable Note 1X 3/5/2023
3.550% Due 03/05/2024
1,300,000.00 Various
3.11%
1,315,499.00
1,313,858.13
103.79
2.30%
1,349,211.50
14,870.56
1.28%
35,353.37
A2 / A-
A+
4.18
2.97
91159HHX1 US Bancorp Callable Note Cont 6/28/2024
2.400% Due 07/30/2024
1,250,000.00 10/10/2019
2.07%
1,268,262.50
1,267,433.35
101.39
2.07%
1,267,400.00
12,666.67
1.20%
(33.35)
A1 / A+
AA-
4.58
4.20
009158AV8 Air Products & Chemicals Callable Note Cont 4/30/2024
3.350% Due 07/31/2024
1,675,000.00 08/07/2019
2.07%
1,771,212.00
1,763,129.30
105.29
2.07%
1,763,592.43
23,536.08
1.68%
463.13
A2 / A
NR
4.59
3.98
69371RQ25 Paccar Financial Corp Note
2.150% Due 08/15/2024
370,000.00 08/08/2019
2.20%
369,182.30
369,244.51
99.91
2.17%
369,672.92
3,005.22
0.35%
428.41
A1 / A+
NR
4.63
4.34
TOTAL US Corporate 21,980,000.00 2.65%
22,135,347.65
22,131,704.91 1.96%
22,512,078.52
190,353.14
21.36%
380,373.61
A1 / A
A+
3.04
2.72
US Treasury
912828T34 US Treasury Note
1.125% Due 09/30/2021
2,000,000.00 09/25/2019
1.71%
1,977,109.38
1,980,130.32
99.20
1.59%
1,983,906.00
5,717.21
1.87%
3,775.68
Aaa / AA+
AAA
1.75
1.72
912828F96 US Treasury Note
2.000% Due 10/31/2021
2,000,000.00 09/25/2019
1.71%
2,012,031.25
2,010,507.71
100.75
1.58%
2,014,922.00
6,813.19
1.90%
4,414.29
Aaa / AA+
AAA
1.84
1.79
912828J43 US Treasury Note
1.750% Due 02/28/2022
2,000,000.00 09/11/2019
1.64%
2,005,078.13
2,004,451.83
100.38
1.57%
2,007,500.00
11,826.92
1.90%
3,048.17
Aaa / AA+
AAA
2.16
2.11
912828XG0 US Treasury Note
2.125% Due 06/30/2022
2,000,000.00 09/11/2019
1.61%
2,028,203.13
2,025,139.97
101.32
1.58%
2,026,406.00
116.76
1.91%
1,266.03
Aaa / AA+
AAA
2.50
2.43
912828L57 US Treasury Note
1.750% Due 09/30/2022
2,000,000.00 09/11/2019
1.62%
2,007,890.63
2,007,104.40
100.40
1.60%
2,008,046.00
8,893.44
1.90%
941.60
Aaa / AA+
AAA
2.75
2.66
912828N30 US Treasury Note
2.125% Due 12/31/2022
2,000,000.00 Various
1.68%
2,029,085.94
2,026,018.11
101.52
1.60%
2,030,468.00
116.76
1.91%
4,449.89
Aaa / AA+
AAA
3.00
2.90
912828T91 US Treasury Note
1.625% Due 10/31/2023
2,000,000.00 Various
1.94%
1,973,554.69
1,977,132.09
99.91
1.65%
1,998,204.00
5,535.72
1.89%
21,071.91
Aaa / AA+
AAA
3.84
3.69
912828V23 US Treasury Note
2.250% Due 12/31/2023
1,500,000.00 06/21/2019
1.80%
1,529,472.66
1,526,063.04
102.28
1.66%
1,534,159.50
92.72
1.44%
8,096.46
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.00
3.82
912828B66 US Treasury Note
2.750% Due 02/15/2024
2,000,000.00 Various
2.13%
2,053,613.28
2,048,000.16
104.31
1.66%
2,086,172.00
20,774.45
1.98%
38,171.84
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.13
3.86
912828X70 US Treasury Note
2.000% Due 04/30/2024
1,700,000.00 06/10/2019
1.92%
1,705,976.56
1,705,293.52
101.37
1.67%
1,723,308.70
5,791.21
1.63%
18,015.18
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.33
4.13
912828XX3 US Treasury Note
2.000% Due 06/30/2024
2,000,000.00 Various
1.80%
2,018,574.22
2,017,275.37
101.39
1.68%
2,027,734.00
109.89
1.91%
10,458.63
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.50
4.29
As of December 31, 2019
30
CC 03-03-20
68 of 873
Holdings Report
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date
Book Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt Price
Mkt YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.
Gain/Loss
Moody/S&P
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
912828D56 US Treasury Note
2.375% Due 08/15/2024
1,700,000.00 09/18/2019
1.71%
1,753,191.41
1,750,104.41
103.06
1.68%
1,752,062.50
15,250.34
1.66%
1,958.09
Aaa / AA+
AAA
4.63
4.34
TOTAL US Treasury 22,900,000.00 1.77%
23,093,781.28
23,077,220.93 1.63%
23,192,888.70
81,038.61
21.90%
115,667.77
Aaa / AA+
Aaa
3.25
3.11
TOTAL PORTFOLIO 103,949,767.49 1.96%
105,242,873.79
105,110,124.34 1.79%
105,740,676.41
534,543.95
100.00%
630,552.07
Aa1 / AA
Aaa
2.80
2.46
TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 106,275,220.36
As of December 31, 2019
31
CC 03-03-20
69 of 873
SECTION |Section 4 |Transactions
32
CC 03-03-20
70 of 873
Transaction Ledger
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp
Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 10/01/2019 3137B5JM6 1,000,000.00 FHLMC K034 A2
3.531% Due: 07/25/2023
105.387 2.00%1,053,867.19 0.00 1,053,867.19 0.00
Purchase 10/08/2019 92348AAA3 515,000.00 Verizon Owner Trust 2019-C A1A
1.94% Due: 04/22/2024
99.992 1.95%514,960.29 0.00 514,960.29 0.00
Purchase 10/11/2019 313380GJ0 2,000,000.00 FHLB Note
2% Due: 09/09/2022
101.270 1.55%2,025,400.00 3,555.56 2,028,955.56 0.00
Purchase 10/15/2019 78013XZU5 982,000.00 Royal Bank of Canada Note
2.55% Due: 07/16/2024
101.801 2.15%999,685.82 6,190.69 1,005,876.51 0.00
Purchase 10/15/2019 91159HHX1 1,250,000.00 US Bancorp Callable Note Cont 6/28/2024
2.4% Due: 07/30/2024
101.461 2.07%1,268,262.50 6,333.33 1,274,595.83 0.00
Purchase 10/18/2019 3135G0W66 775,000.00 FNMA Note
1.625% Due: 10/15/2024
99.829 1.66%773,674.75 0.00 773,674.75 0.00
Purchase 10/21/2019 47789JAD8 400,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A3
2.91% Due: 07/17/2023
101.668 2.05%406,671.88 194.00 406,865.88 0.00
Purchase 10/23/2019 65479JAD5 810,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2019-C A3
1.93% Due: 07/15/2024
99.995 1.94%809,957.23 0.00 809,957.23 0.00
Purchase 10/24/2019 13063DRK6 755,000.00 California St TE-GO
2.4% Due: 10/01/2024
102.297 1.91%772,342.35 0.00 772,342.35 0.00
Purchase 10/25/2019 43815NAC8 500,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Trust 2019-3 A3
1.78% Due: 08/15/2023
99.668 2.07%498,339.84 247.22 498,587.06 0.00
Purchase 11/18/2019 62479LDG7 2,000,000.00 MUFG Bank Ltd Discount CP
1.91% Due: 04/16/2020
99.204 1.95%1,984,083.33 0.00 1,984,083.33 0.00
Purchase 11/26/2019 880592QB9 2,000,000.00 TVA Discount Note
1.584% Due: 12/04/2019
99.965 1.61%1,999,296.00 0.00 1,999,296.00 0.00
Purchase 12/09/2019 78013XZU5 318,000.00 Royal Bank of Canada Note
2.55% Due: 07/16/2024
101.352 2.24%322,299.36 3,221.07 325,520.43 0.00
Purchase 12/13/2019 3135G0W66 1,200,000.00 FNMA Note
1.625% Due: 10/15/2024
99.344 1.77%1,192,128.00 2,979.17 1,195,107.17 0.00
September 30, 2019 through December 31, 2019
As of December 31, 2019
33
CC 03-03-20
71 of 873
Transaction Ledger
City of Cupertino -Account #10659
Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp
Yield Amount Interest
Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss
Purchase 12/30/2019 313384SM2 1,700,000.00 FHLB Discount Note
1.57% Due: 01/31/2020
99.860 1.59%1,697,627.56 0.00 1,697,627.56 0.00
Subtotal 16,205,000.00 16,318,596.10 22,721.04 16,341,317.14 0.00
TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 16,205,000.00 16,318,596.10 22,721.04 16,341,317.14 0.00
DISPOSITIONS
Maturity 10/11/2019 313378UP4 1,500,000.00 FHLB Note
2% Due: 10/11/2019
100.000 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 0.00
Maturity 11/18/2019 3133EGJ30 2,000,000.00 FFCB Note
1.1% Due: 11/18/2019
100.000 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
Maturity 12/04/2019 880592QB9 2,000,000.00 TVA Discount Note
1.584% Due: 12/04/2019
100.000 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
Maturity 12/23/2019 06417G5Q7 2,000,000.00 Bank of Nova Scotia Yankee CD
2.61% Due: 12/23/2019
100.000 2,000,000.00 40,020.00 2,040,020.00 0.00
Maturity 12/30/2019 3134G8S83 2,000,000.00 FHLMC Callable Note 1X 3/30/2017
1.5% Due: 12/30/2019
100.000 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
Maturity 12/30/2019 3134G9G43 3,000,000.00 FHLMC Callable Note 1X 12/30/2016
1.02% Due: 12/30/2019
100.000 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal 12,500,000.00 12,500,000.00 40,020.00 12,540,020.00 0.00
TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 12,500,000.00 12,500,000.00 40,020.00 12,540,020.00 0.00
September 30, 2019 through December 31, 2019
As of December 31, 2019
34
CC 03-03-20
72 of 873
Important Disclosures
2019 Chandler Asset Management,Inc,An Independent Registered Investment Adviser.
Information contained herein is confidential.Prices are provided by IDC,an independent pricing source.In the event IDC does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market
value,Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures.Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in
Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A.
Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return.The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results.These results include the reinvestment of
dividends and other earnings.Past performance may not be indicative of future results.Therefore,clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy
will be profitable or equal to past performance levels.All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss.Economic factors,market conditions or changes in investment strategies,
contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio.
Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions.Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the
deduction of an investment management fee,the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results.It is not possible to invest directly in an index.
Source ice Data Indices,LLC ("ICE"),used with permission.ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an "as is"basis;ICE,its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and
all warranties and representations,express and/or implied,including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use,including the indices,index data and any data included
in,related to,or derived therefrom.Neither ICE data,its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality,adequacy,accuracy,timeliness or completeness of the indices or the
index data or any component thereof,and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an "as is"basis and licensee's use it at licensee's own risk.ICE data,its affiliates and their
respective third party do not sponsor,endorse,or recommend chandler asset management,or any of its products or services.
This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice.The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be
reliable as of the date of publication,but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice.Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to
change.This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results.Past performance is not indicative of
future results.This report is not intended to constitute an offer,solicitation,recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a
substitute for the exercise of their own judgment.
Fixed income investments are subject to interest,credit and market risk.Interest rate risk:the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise.Credit risk:the possibility that the
borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal.Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk.Market risk:the bond market in
general could decline due to economic conditions,especially during periods of rising interest rates.
Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s,S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement,however we cannot guarantee its accuracy.
Security level ratings for U.S.Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”)reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated.The issuing U.S.Agency guarantees the full and
timely payment of both principal and interest and carries a AA+/Aaa/AAA by S&P,Moody’s and Fitch respectively.
As of December 31, 2019
35
CC 03-03-20
73 of 873
Benchmark Disclosures
ICE BAML 1-5 Yr US Treasury/Agency Index
The ICE BAML 1-5 Year US Treasury &Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market.Qualifying
securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s,S&P and Fitch).Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five
years remaining term to final maturity,at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance,a fixed coupon schedule and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for
agencies.(Index:GVA0.Please visit www.mlindex.ml.com for more information)
As of December 31, 2019
36
CC 03-03-20
74 of 873
*20SE02040012**20SE02040012*IRT - SAN FRANCISCO CA1525 WEST W.T. HARRIS BLVD.MAC D1118-02YCHARLOTTE, NC 28262CITY OF CUPERTINO -CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENTACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400MONTHLY STATEMENTDECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT MANAGER: MICHAEL J WADETELEPHONE NUMBER: 415-537-7309CEO# CITY OF CUPERTINOINVESTMENT CONTACT: IMR/TEAMBLUETELEPHONE NUMBER: 612-667-8331ADMINISTRATOR: DILLON GUERREROTELEPHONE NUMBER: 254-761-6927RICHARDW,CITYO57600120 SECC 03-03-20 75 of 873
CC 03-03-20
76 of 873
*20SE02040022**20SE02040022*TABLE OF CONTENTSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________PAGEREPORT NAMENUMBER_________________ASSET SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES ............................................................ 2CASH SUMMARY ................................................................................... 13STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS ...................................................................... 14CC 03-03-20 77 of 873
PAGE 1ASSET SUMMARYCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ASSET SUMMARY% TOTAL UNREALIZED ESTIMATED CURRENT ACCRUEDINVESTMENT CATEGORYCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ANNUAL INCOME YIELD INCOME_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CASH0.000.00 0.00CASH EQUIVALENTS13,906,478.38 13,919,693.49 13.16 13,215.11 242,004 1.74 85,459.66BONDS AND NOTES91,336,395.41 91,829,352.90 86.84 492,957.49 2,196,623 2.39 455,005.86=====================================================================================================================================TOTAL INVESTMENTS105,242,873.79 105,749,046.39 100.00 506,172.60 2,438,627 2.31 540,465.52TOTAL ACCRUALS540,465.52 540,465.52=====================================================================================================================================TOTAL ACCRUALS AND INVESTMENTS 105,783,339.31 106,289,511.91506,172.60 2,438,627 2.31 540,465.52CC 03-03-20 78 of 873
*20SE02040032**20SE02040032*PAGE 2STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________PRINCIPAL CASH7,500.007,500.00 0.01INCOME CASH7,500.00-7,500.00- 0.01-CASH EQUIVALENTS______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,700,000 FED HOME LN BK DISC NOTE1,697,627.56 1,697,926.00 1.61298.440.00DTD 01/31/19 01/31/202099.860599.8780CUSIP 313384SM22,000,000 MUFG BANK LTD NY BRAN CPDN1,984,083.33 1,989,740.00 1.88 5,656.670.00DTD 10/22/19 04/16/202099.204299.4870CUSIP 62479LDG72,000,000 NORDEA BK ABP NY2,000,000.00 2,003,680.00 1.89 3,680.00 41,946.67CERT OF DEPOSIT100.0000 100.1840DTD 03/21/19 2.640 03/23/2020CUSIP 65558TFW02,000,000 TORONTO-DOMINION2,000,000.00 2,003,580.00 1.89 3,580.00 41,628.89CERT OF DEPOSIT100.0000 100.1790DTD 03/21/19 2.620 04/02/2020CUSIP 89114MYP66,224,767.49 WELLS FARGO 100% TREASURY6,224,767.49 6,224,767.49 5.890.00 1,884.10MONEY MARKET FUND - #0081.00001.0000======================================================================================================================================TOTAL CASH EQUIVALENTS13,906,478.38 13,919,693.49 13.16 13,215.11 85,459.66BOND & NOTES______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________850,000 ACE INA HOLDINGS841,840.00 853,009.00 0.81 11,169.00 3,149.72DTD 11/03/15 2.300 11/03/202099.0400 100.3540MOODY'S RATING A3CUSIP 00440EAT4CC 03-03-20 79 of 873
PAGE 3STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,675,000 AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS1,771,212.00 1,763,590.75 1.67 7,621.25- 23,536.08DTD 07/31/14 3.350 07/31/2024105.7440 105.2890MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 009158AV81,300,000 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE1,345,306.00 1,372,852.00 1.30 27,546.00 10,603.13MED TERM NOTE103.4851 105.6040DTD 10/10/18 3.625 10/10/2023MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 02665WCQ21,000,000 APPLE INC984,840.00 1,017,060.00 0.96 32,220.00 3,866.67DTD 05/03/13 2.400 05/03/202398.4840 101.7060MOODY'S RATING AA1CUSIP 037833AK61,300,000 BANK OF AMERICA CORP1,315,499.00 1,349,218.00 1.28 33,719.00 14,870.56DTD 03/05/18 03/05/2024101.1922 103.7860MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 06051GHF91,000,000 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP1,013,650.00 1,049,150.00 0.99 35,500.00 6,125.00MED TERM NOTE101.3650 104.9150DTD 04/30/18 3.500 04/28/2023MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 06406RAG2755,000 CALIFORNIA ST772,342.35 765,864.45 0.72 6,477.90- 3,372.33TXBL-REF102.2970 101.4390DTD 10/24/19 2.400 10/01/2024MOODY'S RATING AA2CUSIP 13063DRK61,500,000 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP1,504,955.00 1,529,385.00 1.45 24,430.00 17,225.00DTD 12/07/17 2.650 01/25/2023100.3303 101.9590MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 808513AT2CC 03-03-20 80 of 873
*20SE02040042**20SE02040042*PAGE 4STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,500,000 FED HOME LN BK1,565,940.00 1,593,420.00 1.51 27,480.00 3,234.38DTD 12/09/13 3.375 12/08/2023104.3960 106.2280MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3130A0F701,500,000 FED HOME LN BK1,568,115.00 1,595,310.00 1.51 27,195.00 15,302.08DTD 02/12/14 3.250 03/08/2024104.5410 106.3540MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3130A0XE51,500,000 FED HOME LN BK1,564,890.20 1,574,925.00 1.49 10,034.80 2,036.46DTD 05/08/14 2.875 06/14/2024104.3260 104.9950MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3130A1XJ22,000,000 FED HOME LN BK2,103,380.00 2,104,660.00 1.99 1,280.00 17,250.00DTD 08/15/14 2.875 09/13/2024105.1690 105.2330MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3130A2UW42,000,000 FED HOME LN BK2,066,320.00 2,051,020.00 1.94 15,300.00- 14,909.72DTD 10/17/14 2.375 09/08/2023103.3160 102.5510MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3130A3DL51,325,000 FED HOME LN BK1,369,559.75 1,349,618.50 1.28 19,941.25- 2,028.91DTD 11/04/11 2.625 12/10/2021103.3630 101.8580MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 313376C942,000,000 FED HOME LN BK2,031,540.00 2,025,900.00 1.92 5,640.00- 14,645.83DTD 03/05/12 2.375 09/10/2021101.5770 101.2950MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 313378JP72,000,000 FED HOME LN BK2,025,400.00 2,021,840.00 1.91 3,560.00- 12,444.44SER 0000101.2700 101.0920DTD 08/13/12 2.000 09/09/2022MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 313380GJ0CC 03-03-20 81 of 873
PAGE 5STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________975,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP975,000.00 973,810.50 0.92 1,189.50- 1,279.69MED TERM NOTE SER 0000100.000099.8780DTD 05/31/16 1.350 05/26/2020MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3134G9MW42,000,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP2,000,000.00 1,998,740.00 1.89 1,260.00- 83.33MED TERM NOTE SER 0001100.000099.9370DTD 06/30/16 1.500 06/30/2020MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3134G9SK41,000,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP1,037,656.25 1,033,070.00 0.98 4,586.25- 2,550.00SER K033 CL A2 *24 DAY DELAY*103.7656 103.3070DTD 10/01/13 07/25/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3137B4WB81,500,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP1,520,100.00 1,523,130.00 1.44 3,030.00 16,625.00MED TERM NOTE101.3400 101.5420DTD 01/13/12 2.375 01/13/2022MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3137EADB21,500,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP1,553,100.00 1,557,900.00 1.47 4,800.00 1,375.00SER *103.5400 103.8600DTD 06/11/18 2.750 06/19/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3137EAEN51,500,000 FED NATL MTG ASSN1,559,805.00 1,565,790.00 1.48 5,985.00 13,057.29DTD 09/14/18 2.875 09/12/2023103.9870 104.3860MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3135G0U431,500,000 FED NATL MTG ASSN1,484,895.00 1,501,710.00 1.42 16,815.00 12,614.58DTD 07/08/19 1.750 07/02/202498.9930 100.1140MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3135G0V75CC 03-03-20 82 of 873
*20SE02040052**20SE02040052*PAGE 6STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,975,000 FED NATL MTG ASSN1,965,802.75 1,965,994.00 1.86191.25 6,507.90DTD 10/18/19 1.625 10/15/202499.534399.5440MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3135G0W663,000,000 FED NATL MTG ASSN3,000,000.00 2,996,580.00 2.83 3,420.00- 4,500.00SER 0002100.000099.8860DTD 05/25/16 1.500 11/25/2020CUSIP 3136G3QQ11,000,000 FHLMC MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURED P1,053,867.19 1,048,910.00 0.99 4,957.19- 2,942.50SER K034 CL A2 *24 DAY DELAY*105.3867 104.8910DTD 11/01/13 07/25/2023CUSIP 3137B5JM61,000,000 FHLMC MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURED P1,061,914.06 1,050,880.00 0.99 11,034.06- 2,939.17SER K036 CL A2 *24 DAY DELAY*106.1914 105.0880DTD 02/01/14 10/25/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 3137B7MZ91,000,000 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP1,004,920.00 1,016,830.00 0.96 11,910.00 4,166.67DTD 05/11/18 3.000 05/11/2021100.4920 101.6830MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 369550BE71,600,000 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER T1,616,875.00 1,616,128.00 1.53747.00- 1,180.00SER 2018-3 CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*101.0547 101.0080DTD 08/28/18 2.950 08/22/2022MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 43815HAC1990,000 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER T988,335.77 987,752.70 0.93583.07- 783.20SER 2019-3 CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*99.831999.7730DTD 08/27/19 1.780 08/15/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 43815NAC8CC 03-03-20 83 of 873
PAGE 7STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,500,000 HSBC HOLDINGS PLC1,572,790.00 1,578,240.00 1.49 5,450.00 7,077.08DTD 05/18/18 05/18/2024104.8527 105.2160MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 404280BS71,500,000 IBM CREDIT CORP1,467,755.00 1,511,790.00 1.43 44,035.00 10,358.33DTD 09/08/17 2.200 09/08/202297.8503 100.7860MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 44932HAC71,000,000 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP1,007,580.00 1,026,220.00 0.97 18,640.00 8,944.44MED TERM NOTE100.7580 102.6220DTD 03/04/16 2.800 03/06/2023MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 24422ETG41,000,000 JOHN DEERE OWNER TRUST1,009,257.81 1,006,540.00 0.95 2,717.81- 982.22SER 2019-B CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*100.9258 100.6540DTD 07/24/19 2.210 12/15/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 477870AC31,400,000 JOHN DEERE OWNER TRUST1,427,492.19 1,420,202.00 1.34 7,290.19- 1,584.33SER 2019-A CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*101.9637 101.4430DTD 03/13/19 2.910 07/17/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 47789JAD81,300,000 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO1,299,224.00 1,324,609.00 1.25 25,385.00 17,815.49DTD 12/08/16 2.972 01/15/202399.9403 101.8930MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 48128BAB71,500,000 NISSAN AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER1,521,210.93 1,520,310.00 1.44900.93- 2,040.00SER 2018-B CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*101.4141 101.3540DTD 07/25/18 3.060 03/15/2023MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 65479GAD1CC 03-03-20 84 of 873
*20SE02040062**20SE02040062*PAGE 8STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________810,000 NISSAN AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER809,957.23 810,324.00 0.77366.77 698.40SER 2019-C CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*99.9947 100.0400DTD 10/23/19 1.940 07/15/2024MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 65479JAD51,000,000 ORACLE CORP982,320.00 1,002,100.00 0.95 19,780.00 5,594.44DTD 07/07/16 1.900 09/15/202198.2320 100.2100MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 68389XBK0435,000 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP449,315.85 454,670.70 0.43 5,354.85 5,833.83DTD 08/09/18 3.400 08/09/2023103.2910 104.5220MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 69371RP59370,000 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP369,182.30 369,674.40 0.35492.10 3,005.22MED TERM NOTE99.779099.9120DTD 08/15/19 2.150 08/15/2024MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 69371RQ251,200,000 PNC BANK NA1,210,236.00 1,216,392.00 1.15 6,156.00 12,495.00DTD 07/28/17 2.450 07/28/2022100.8530 101.3660MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 69353RFE31,300,000 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA1,321,985.18 1,320,007.00 1.25 1,978.18- 15,193.75DTD 07/16/19 2.550 07/16/2024101.6912 101.5390MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 78013XZU51,000,000 STATE STREET CORP986,055.00 1,002,070.00 0.95 16,015.00 2,275.00DTD 05/19/16 1.950 05/19/202198.6055 100.2070MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 857477AV5CC 03-03-20 85 of 873
PAGE 9STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,500,000 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK1,527,255.00 1,536,585.00 1.45 9,330.00 2,097.92MED TERM NOTE101.8170 102.4390DTD 06/12/19 2.650 06/12/2024MOODY'S RATING AA3CUSIP 89114QCA41,500,000 TOYOTA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER1,517,519.53 1,514,730.00 1.43 2,789.53- 1,973.33SER 2018-B CL A3 *0 DAY DELAY*101.1680 100.9820DTD 05/16/18 2.960 09/15/2022MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 89238TAD51,000,000 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP992,200.00 1,015,130.00 0.96 22,930.00 12,277.78MED TERM NOTE99.2200 101.5130DTD 01/09/17 2.600 01/11/2022MOODY'S RATING AA3CUSIP 89236TDP71,250,000 US BANCORP1,268,262.50 1,267,400.00 1.20862.50- 12,666.67DTD 07/29/19 2.400 07/30/2024101.4610 101.3920MOODY'S RATING A1CUSIP 91159HHX12,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,053,613.28 2,086,180.00 1.97 32,566.72 20,774.46DTD 02/18/14 2.750 02/15/2024102.6807 104.3090MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828B661,700,000 US TREASURY NOTE1,753,191.41 1,752,071.00 1.66 1,120.41- 15,250.34DTD 08/15/14 2.375 08/15/2024103.1289 103.0630MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828D562,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,012,031.25 2,014,920.00 1.91 2,888.75 6,813.19DTD 10/31/14 2.000 10/31/2021100.6016 100.7460MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828F96CC 03-03-20 86 of 873
*20SE02040072**20SE02040072*PAGE 10STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,005,078.13 2,007,500.00 1.90 2,421.87 11,826.92DTD 02/28/15 1.750 02/28/2022100.2539 100.3750MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828J432,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,007,890.63 2,008,040.00 1.90149.37 8,893.44DTD 09/30/15 1.750 09/30/2022100.3945 100.4020MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828L572,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,029,085.94 2,030,460.00 1.92 1,374.06 116.76DTD 12/31/15 2.125 12/31/2022101.4543 101.5230.MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828N302,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE1,977,109.38 1,983,900.00 1.88 6,790.62 5,717.21DTD 09/30/16 1.125 09/30/202198.855599.1950MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828T342,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE1,973,554.69 1,998,200.00 1.89 24,645.31 5,535.71DTD 10/31/16 1.625 10/31/202398.677799.9100MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828T911,500,000 US TREASURY NOTE1,529,472.66 1,534,155.00 1.45 4,682.3492.72DTD 01/03/17 2.250 12/31/2023101.9649 102.2770MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828V232,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,028,203.13 2,026,400.00 1.92 1,803.13- 116.76DTD 06/30/15 2.125 06/30/2022101.4102 101.3200MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828XG02,000,000 US TREASURY NOTE2,018,574.22 2,027,740.00 1.92 9,165.78 109.89DTD 06/30/17 2.000 06/30/2024100.9287 101.3870MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828XX3CC 03-03-20 87 of 873
PAGE 11STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________1,700,000 US TREASURY NOTE1,705,976.56 1,723,307.00 1.63 17,330.44 5,791.21DTD 05/01/17 2.000 04/30/2024100.3516 101.3710MOODY'S RATING AAACUSIP 912828X70515,000 VERIZON OWNER TRUST514,960.29 514,515.90 0.49444.39- 305.28SER 2019-C CL A1A *0 DAY DELAY*99.992399.9060144A PRIV PLCMT 1.940 04/22/2024CUSIP 92348AAA31,000,000 WALMART INC1,023,630.00 1,051,500.00 0.99 27,870.00 472.22DTD 06/27/18 3.400 06/26/2023102.3630 105.1500MOODY'S RATING AA2CUSIP 931142EK51,300,000 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY1,297,365.00 1,319,422.00 1.25 22,057.00 15,071.88DTD 07/24/17 2.625 07/22/202299.7973 101.4940MOODY'S RATING A2CUSIP 95000U2B8======================================================================================================================================TOTAL BOND & NOTES91,336,395.41 91,829,352.90 86.84 492,957.49 455,005.86======================================================================================================================================TOTAL INVESTMENTS105,242,873.79 105,749,046.39 100.00 506,172.60 540,465.52TOTAL ACCRUALS540,465.52 540,465.52======================================================================================================================================TOTAL ACCRUALS AND INVESTMENTS105,783,339.31 106,289,511.91CC 03-03-20 88 of 873
*20SE02040082**20SE02040082*PAGE 12STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCITY OF CUPERTINOAS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIESCOST VALUE MARKET VALUE % TOTAL UNREALIZEDPAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION/ UNIT COST / UNIT PRICE MARKET GAIN/LOSS ACCRUED INCOME______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Asset Pricing:Values reflected for publicly-traded assets are provided by unaffiliated financial industrysources believed to be reliable. Values for non-publicly traded assets may be determined fromother unaffiliated sources. Assets for which a current value is unavailable may be reflected atthe last reported price, at par, or may be shown as having nominal or no value. Reportedvalues may not be the price at which an asset may be sold. Asset values are updated as pricingbecomes available from external sources, and may be updated less frequently than statements aregenerated.Trade Confirms:Pursuant to federal regulation, monthly or quarterly account statements that include investmenttransaction details may be provided in lieu of separate trade confirmations. Separate tradeconfirms may be obtained at no additional cost upon written request to the account manager.Residents of Texas:For residents of Texas, except participants in qualified ERISA Plans - Your property may betransferred to the appropriate state if no activity occurs in the account within the timeperiod specified by state law. If your state of residence allows, you may designate arepresentative for the purpose of receiving notice of account inactivity by providing the nameand mailing or email address of a representative. The designated representative does not haveany rights to your account. Please refer to your state's unclaimed property website for moreinformation and instructions on how to designate a representative for notice.CC 03-03-20 89 of 873
PAGE 13CASH SUMMARYCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CASH SUMMARYDESCRIPTIONPRINCIPAL CASHINCOME CASH__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________BEGINNING BALANCE0.000.00RECEIPTSNET INTEREST COLLECTED0.00303,540.87TRANSFER RECEIPTS310,909.610.00SALES8,999,834.930.00CASH MANAGEMENT SALES3,108,295.890.00TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS12,419,040.43303,540.87DISBURSEMENTSINVESTMENT MANAGEMENT EXPENSES6,971.97-0.00OTHER CASH DISBURSEMENTS0.00131.26-TRANSFER DISBURSEMENTS0.00310,909.61-PURCHASES3,212,054.92-0.00CASH MANAGEMENT PURCHASES9,192,513.54-0.00TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS12,411,540.43-311,040.87-========================================================================================================================================ENDING BALANCE7,500.007,500.00-________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CC 03-03-20 90 of 873
*20SE02040092**20SE02040092*PAGE 14STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________BEGINNING BALANCE0.00 104,946,436.15__________________________________ _________________CASH EQUIVALENTS12/23/19 2,000,000- MATURED2,000,538.93 2,000,538.93-BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 2.610% 12/23/19CUSIP 06417G5Q7AT $100.0000 ON TRADE DATE 12/23/201912/23/19INTEREST RECEIVED39,481.07BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 2.610% 12/23/19CUSIP 06417G5Q7INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS2,000,000 PAR VALUE AT 100 %12/30/19 1,700,000 PURCHASED1,697,627.56- 1,697,627.56FED HOME LN BK DISC 1/31/20CUSIP 313384SM2AT $99.8604 ON TRADE DATE 12/30/2019PERSHING12/04/19 2,000,000- MATURED1,999,296.00 1,999,296.00-TVA DISCOUNT NOTE12/04/19CUSIP 880592QB9AT $100.0000 ON TRADE DATE 12/04/201912/04/19INTEREST RECEIVED704.00TVA DISCOUNT NOTE12/04/19CUSIP 880592QB9INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS2,000,000 PAR VALUE AT 100 %12/02/19INTEREST RECEIVED1,884.91WF 100% TREAS MM FD-SVC CL #008INTEREST FROM 11/1/19 TO 11/30/19CC 03-03-20 91 of 873
PAGE 15STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/12/19COMP CHARGE FOR USE OF FUNDS131.26-PAID TO WELLS FARGOWF 100% TREAS MM FD-SVC CL #008EARNINGS ADJUSTMENT ON VARIOUSAMOUNTSFROM 11/18/19 TO 11/26/19CLAIM REF #CM201912110612/31/19 9,192,513.54 CASH SWEEP PURCHASES FOR STMT PERIOD9,192,513.54- 9,192,513.54WF 100% TREAS MM FD-SVC CL #00810 TRANSACTIONS12/31/19 3,108,295.89- CASH SWEEP SALES FOR STMT PERIOD3,108,295.89 3,108,295.89-WF 100% TREAS MM FD-SVC CL #0085 TRANSACTIONSBONDS & NOTES12/10/19INTEREST RECEIVED17,390.63FED HOME LN BK 2.625% 12/10/21CUSIP 313376C94INTEREST ON 1,325,000.000 UNITS12/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED21,562.50FED HOME LN BK 2.875% 6/14/24CUSIP 3130A1XJ2INTEREST ON 1,500,000.000 UNITS12/09/19INTEREST RECEIVED25,312.50FED HOME LN BK 3.375% 12/08/23CUSIP 3130A0F70INTEREST ON 1,500,000.000 UNITS12/30/19 3,000,000- MATURED3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00-FED HOME LN MTG CORP 1.020% 12/30/19CUSIP 3134G9G43AT $100.0000 ON TRADE DATE 12/30/2019CC 03-03-20 92 of 873
*20SE02040102**20SE02040102*PAGE 16STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/30/19INTEREST RECEIVED15,300.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP 1.020% 12/30/19CUSIP 3134G9G43INTEREST ON 3,000,000.000 UNITS12/30/19INTEREST RECEIVED15,000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP 1.500% 6/30/20CUSIP 3134G9SK4INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS12/30/19 2,000,000- MATURED2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00-FED HOME LN MTG CORP 1.500% 12/30/19CUSIP 3134G8S83AT $100.0000 ON TRADE DATE 12/30/201912/31/19INTEREST RECEIVED7,500.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP 1.500% 12/30/19CUSIP 3134G8S83INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS12/19/19INTEREST RECEIVED20,625.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP 2.750% 6/19/23CUSIP 3137EAEN5INTEREST ON 1,500,000.000 UNITS12/13/19 1,200,000 PURCHASED1,192,128.00- 1,192,128.00FED NATL MTG ASSN 1.625% 10/15/24CUSIP 3135G0W66AT $99.3440 ON TRADE DATE 12/12/2019TO SETTLE ON 12/13/2019CITIGROUP GBL MKTS/SALOMON BRO12/13/19ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE2,979.17-FED NATL MTG ASSN 1.625% 10/15/24CUSIP 3135G0W66CC 03-03-20 93 of 873
PAGE 17STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED1,468.50HONDA AUTO RECEIVABL 1.780% 8/15/23CUSIP 43815NAC8$0.00148/PV ON 990,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/1912/23/19INTEREST RECEIVED3,933.33HONDA AUTO RECEIVABL 2.950% 8/22/22CUSIP 43815HAC1$0.00246/PV ON 1,600,000.00 PVDUE 12/21/1912/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED1,841.67JOHN DEERE OWNER TRU 2.210% 12/15/23CUSIP 477870AC3$0.00184/PV ON 1,000,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/1912/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED3,395.00JOHN DEERE OWNER TRU 2.910% 7/17/23CUSIP 47789JAD8$0.00243/PV ON 1,400,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/1912/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED1,302.75NISSAN AUTO RECEIVAB 1.940% 7/15/24CUSIP 65479JAD5$0.00161/PV ON 810,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/1912/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED3,825.00NISSAN AUTO RECEIVAB 3.060% 3/15/23CUSIP 65479GAD1$0.00255/PV ON 1,500,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/19CC 03-03-20 94 of 873
*20SE02040112**20SE02040112*PAGE 18STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/09/19 318,000 PURCHASED322,299.36- 322,299.36ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 2.550% 7/16/24CUSIP 78013XZU5AT $101.3520 ON TRADE DATE 12/05/2019TO SETTLE ON 12/09/2019WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC12/09/19ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE3,221.07-ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 2.550% 7/16/24CUSIP 78013XZU512/12/19INTEREST RECEIVED19,875.00TORONTO-DOMINION BAN 2.650% 6/12/24CUSIP 89114QCA4INTEREST ON 1,500,000.000 UNITS0.01325 ON 1500000 SHRS DUE 12/12/1912/16/19INTEREST RECEIVED3,700.00TOYOTA AUTO RECEIVAB 2.960% 9/15/22CUSIP 89238TAD5$0.00247/PV ON 1,500,000.00 PVDUE 12/15/1912/31/19INTEREST RECEIVED20,000.00US TREASURY NOTE 2.000% 6/30/24CUSIP 912828XX3INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS12/31/19INTEREST RECEIVED21,250.00US TREASURY NOTE 2.125% 6/30/22CUSIP 912828XG0INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITS12/31/19INTEREST RECEIVED21,250.00US TREASURY NOTE 2.125% 12/31/22CUSIP 912828N30INTEREST ON 2,000,000.000 UNITSCC 03-03-20 95 of 873
PAGE 19STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/31/19INTEREST RECEIVED16,875.00US TREASURY NOTE 2.250% 12/31/23CUSIP 912828V23INTEREST ON 1,500,000.000 UNITS12/20/19INTEREST RECEIVED832.58VERIZON OWNER TRUST 1.940% 4/22/24CUSIP 92348AAA3$0.00162/PV ON 515,000.00 PVDUE 12/20/1912/26/19INTEREST RECEIVED2,550.00VR FED HOME LN MTG 3.060% 7/25/23CUSIP 3137B4WB8$0.00255/PV ON 1,000,000.00 PVDUE 12/25/1912/26/19INTEREST RECEIVED2,939.17VR FHLMC MULTIFAMILY 3.527% 10/25/23CUSIP 3137B7MZ9$0.00294/PV ON 1,000,000.00 PVDUE 12/25/1912/26/19INTEREST RECEIVED2,942.50VR FHLMC MULTIFAMILY 3.531% 7/25/23CUSIP 3137B5JM6$0.00294/PV ON 1,000,000.00 PVDUE 12/25/1912/26/19INTEREST RECEIVED17,000.00WALMART INC 3.400% 6/26/23CUSIP 931142EK5INTEREST ON 1,000,000.000 UNITSCC 03-03-20 96 of 873
*20SE02040122**20SE02040122*PAGE 20STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________TRANSFER RECEIPTS12/02/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT1,884.91TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/04/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT704.00TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/09/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT22,091.43TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/10/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT17,390.63TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/13/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT16,764.57TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/16/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT37,095.42TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/19/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT20,625.00TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/20/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT832.58TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/23/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT43,414.40TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/26/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT8,431.67TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/27/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT17,000.00TRANSFER FROM INCOMECC 03-03-20 97 of 873
PAGE 21STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/30/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT45,300.00TRANSFER FROM INCOME12/31/19ADDITION TO ACCOUNT79,375.00TRANSFER FROM INCOMEINVESTMENT MANAGEMENT EXPENSES12/04/19INVESTMENT MGMT FEE6,971.97-PAID TO BRIDGE BANKINV #1911CUPERTIN FOR PERIOD11/1/19-11/30/19TRANSFER DISBURSEMENTS12/02/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL1,884.91-12/04/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL704.00-12/09/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL22,091.43-12/10/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL17,390.63-12/13/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL16,764.57-12/16/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL37,095.42-12/19/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL20,625.00-12/20/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL832.58-12/23/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL43,414.40-12/26/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL8,431.67-CC 03-03-20 98 of 873
*20SE02040132**20SE02040132*PAGE 22STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSCITY OF CUPERTINOFOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2019ACCOUNT NUMBER 16737400_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONSREALIZEDDATE PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTIONCASHCOST VALUE GAIN/LOSS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________12/27/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL17,000.00-12/30/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL45,300.00-12/31/19TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL79,375.00-=================================================================================================================ENDING BALANCE0.00 105,242,873.79______________________________ _________________CC 03-03-20 99 of 873
CC 03-03-20
100 of 873
1/3/2020 LAIF Regular Monthly Statement
https://laifms.treasurer.ca.gov/RegularStatement.aspx 1/1
Local Agency Investment Fund
P.O. Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916) 653-3001
January 03, 2020
LAIF Home
PMIA Average Monthly
Yields
Account Number: 98-43-231
December 2019 Statement
Tran Type Definitions
Account Summary
Total Deposit:0.00 Beginning Balance:20,602,215.05
Total Withdrawal:0.00 Ending Balance:20,602,215.05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
FINANCE MANAGER
10300 TORRE AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
CC 03-03-20
101 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pizza My Heart, Inc (dba Pizza My Heart),
19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 140
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application
for Alcohol Beverage License for Pizza My Heart, Inc (dba Pizza My Heart), 19409 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Suite 140
File #:20-7089,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
102 of 873
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 3rd, 2020
Subject
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Pizza My Heart Incorporated (dba Pizza My
Heart), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite #140.
Recommended Action
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Pizza My Heart Incorporated (dba Pizza My
Heart), 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite #140.
Description
Name of Business: Pizza My Heart
Location: 19409 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite #140
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Original Fees, Annual Fee
Discussion
There are no other zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as
proposed. Therefore, staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41
authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. This
business is located in Main Street Cupertino.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Lauren Ninkovich, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Deborah Feng, City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CC 03-03-20
103 of 873
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
ABC 21i (6/99)
State of California
TO:Department o'fAlcoholic Beverage Control
100 PASEO DE SAN ANTONIO
ROOM 119
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
(408) 277-1200
File Number: 614467
Receipt Number: 2622825
Geographical Code: 4303
Copies Mailed Date: January 24, 2020
Issued Date:
DISTRJCT SERVING LOCATION: SAN JOSE
First Oyvner: PIZZA MY HEART INC
Name of Business: PIZZA MY HEART
Location of Business:
Countv:
Is Premises inside cit> limits?
Mailing Addi-ess:( If different
from
premises address)
Type of license(s):
Transferor's license/name:
19409 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
STE 140
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-7106
SANTA CLARA
Yes Census Tract:5081.02
16222 SHANNON RD
LOS GATOS, CA 95032
41 Dropping Partner: Yes
LicenseTv e TransactionTspe
41 - On-Sale Beer And 'vl ine - Eatinx P ORI
Master
Y
Secondary LT And Count
License Tvpe
.Application Fee
41 - On-Sale Beer And \A ine - Eat
Transaction Description
.'iDD PR]MAR'l' LIC[SSE T'l'PE
.ASNtJ,-UL FEE
Fee Code !2!!32 Date Fee
x.x 0 01.'2-1.'20 $905.00
NA 0 01'24/'20 $455.00
Total $1.360.00
No2
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoliolic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the
Depaitment pertaining to the Act'? NO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Applicar.t Name(s)
Countv of SANTA CLARA Date: January 24. 2020
PIZZA Sl'f' HEART INC ( md ,..2// fly(; )
CC 03-03-20
104 of 873
+ o r o a -a a a o a a- o a a - o o a a o a a - - - a - a - @ -
APPLICATION SIGNATURE SHEET ('SIGN ON')
a Read instrucfions on reverse before completing.
a A// signatures must be witnessed by an ABC
employee or notarized in accordance with /aws
of the State where signed.
OWNERSt-IIP TYPE (Check one)
@Sole Owner @ Partnership-Ltd
i OPartnership [jCorporation
I [Married Couple 'agLimited Liability Company
j € DomesticPartner @other
2 FILE NUMBER (If any)3 LICENSETYPE
41
.4 TRANSACTION TYPE
i 50riginal §PersontoPersonTransfer
i @Exchange @PremisetoPremiseTransfer
' @Otherj
5 APPLICANT(S) NAME (Last, first, middle)
Pizza My Heart, Inc
6 APPLICANT'S MAILING ADDRESS (Street address/P O box, aty, state, ztp code)
16222 Shannon Rd, Los Gatos CA 95032
7 PREMISES ADDRESS (Street address, city, zip oode)
194 €)9 Steven's Creek Blvd #1-40, Cupertino CA 95014
APPLICANTS CERTIFICATION
Under penalty of perjury, each pemn whose signature appears
below,certiiThesandsays: (l)He/Sheisanapplicant,oroneofthe
applicants, or mi executive officer ofthe applicant corporation,
named in the foregoing application, duly auihoied to make this
application on its behalf, (2) that he/she has read the foregoing and
knows the contents thereof and tit each of the above statements
therein made are tnie; (3) that no person other than fl'ie applicant or
applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or
applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for wich
this application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed
transfer is not made to (a) satisjy the payment of a loan or to fuli-ill an
agreement entered into more tl'ian ninety (90) days preceding the day 011
wich the tsfer application is filed with the Department, (b) to gam
or establisli a preference to or for aiiy creditor or transferor, or (c ) to
def3raud or injure any creditor or transferor, (5) that the transfer
application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee
with no resulting liability to the Department.
I understand that if I fail to qualify for the license or t'iithdraw this
application, the application fee shall be non-refundable as specified in
Section 23320 B&P
SOLE OWNER
PARTNERSHIP/LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Signatures of ge teral partners only)
9 PARTNER'S PRINTED NAME (Last, first, middle)SIGN ATURE
x
DATE SIGNED
PARTNER'S PRINTED NAME (LaQ first, middle)SIGNATURE
x
DATE SIGNED
PARTNER'S PRINTED NAME (Last, first, middle)
I
I
SIGNATURE
x
DATE SIGNED
CORPORATION
10 PRINTED NAME (Last, first, middle)
Hammers, Charies, Ciutis
SIGNATURE
TITLE
5President @VicePresident @ChairmanoftheBoard
IP-{RaiNnmTEDeNrAs,MEC(lhaar'l'e's,'mCdurdeti)s I
SIGNATURE
x , <" l
DATESIGNED { /
i i 'y
i t' 7?. '7 / Z' t>
TITLE
l'
E]Secretary € Asst. Secretary [1] Chief Financial Officer € Asst. Treasurer (
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
"t 1. The limited liability ompany is member-run []Yes
12 NAME OF DESIGNATED MANAGER, MANAGING MEMBER OR DESIGNATED OFFICER (Last, first, middle
€ No (If no, complete Item J#12 below)
13 MEMBER'S PRINTED NAME (Last, first, middle) jSIGNATURE
'X
DATE SIGNED
MEMBER'S PRINTED NAME (Last, first, middle) iSIGNATLJRE
x
DATE SIGNED
AQ('-")1 1-Ql(a: /ratt n7/1 01 "QlCAf /W"
CC 03-03-20
105 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Second reading for Municipal Code Amendments to Chapter 19.112 - Accessory Dwelling
Units; Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones; and Chapter 19.08 - Definitions; for Clarifications, and Consistency with recently adopted
State Bills (Application No. MCA-2018-04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide).
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 20-2199: “An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units; Chapter 19.20 -
Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08
Definitions.”
File #:19-5852,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
106 of 873
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 03, 2020
Subject
Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-2199 adopting Municipal Code Amendments to
Chapter 19.112 - Accessory Dwelling Units; Chapter 19.20 - Permitted, Conditional and
Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones; and Chapter 19.08 – Definitions;
for Clarifications, and Consistency with recently adopted State Bills (Application No.
MCA-2018-04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Actions
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 20-2199 (MCA-2018-04: “An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 19.112,
Accessory Dwelling Units, Chapter 19.20 – Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in
Agricultural and Residential Zones and Chapter 19.08 Definitions.” (Attachment A).
Discussion
On February 18, 2020 the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading of
Ordinance No. 20-2199 on a 5-0 vote. The City Council motion for adoption included
incorporation of a minor text amendment to Section 19.08. Attachment B indicates
redlines to the page of the ordinance since the first reading.
Environmental Review
Public Resources Code Sec. 21080.17 provides a statutory CEQA exemption to ADU
ordinances adopted to implement Government Code Sec. 65852.2.
Fiscal Impact
Minor fiscal impacts to the City due to the reduction in the collection of certain impact
fees, as required by state law.
Next Steps
This zoning ordinance will take effect 30 days after the second reading.
CC 03-03-20
107 of 873
2
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Deborah Feng, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ordinance No. 20-2199
B – Redlines indicating amendments since first reading
CC 03-03-20
108 of 873
Draft Ordinance No. 20-2199
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.112, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, CHAPTER
19.20 – PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND CHAPTER 19.08
DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is determined to be exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code section
21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) (hereinafter, “CEQA Guidelines”), in that an
Ordinance to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2 is
statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21080.17. Any
portion of the proposed Ordinance that is not statutorily exempt 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 the 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). and
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; and
WHEREAS, as required by Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.152.030, the City
Council makes the following findings in connection with the changes to zoning
regulations proposed in Chapters 19.08, 19.20 & 19.112:
1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with Title 19 of the Municipal Code and the
City’s Comprehensive General Plan.
The Ordinance modifies Title 19 to be consistent with recently passed State Assembly and
Senate Bills aimed at promoting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units to alleviate the
existing housing crisis in the State of California. Cities must comply with state law. By adopting
a local ordinance, the City is exercising the limited discretion allowed by state law for certain types
of Accessory Dwelling Units.
The proposed Ordinance amendments conform with the City’s Housing Element’s goal of
providing an adequate supply of residential units for all economic segments through its strategy
of continuing to implement the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encouraging the
production of second units.
CC 03-03-20
109 of 873
2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Adoption of zoning code provisions regarding accessory dwelling units are statutorily
exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.
3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for
the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).
The Ordinance is a citywide amendment to be in conformance with State standards to
encourage Accessory Dwelling Unit development. State law explicitly states that Accessory
Dwelling Units cannot be considered additional density. Therefore, the amendments do not impact
the residential density designations for sites within the City. Accessory Dwelling Units are limited
to single family, multifamily, and mixed-use residential zoning districts subject to their
conformance with standards outlined in Title 19.
4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City.
By updating the Accessory Dwelling Unit development standards, the Ordinance allows
for additional affordable housing development. The ordinance also prohibits the use of Accessory
Dwelling Units, which includes Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, as Short Term Rentals. This
would allow the City to grow its long-term housing stock. By adopting a local ordinance, the City
is exercising the limited discretion allowed by state law for certain types of Accessory Dwelling
Units.
5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals
and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject
parcels.
The Ordinance is a citywide amendment to be in conformance with State standards to
encourage Accessory Unit Development. The Ordinance contains various developments standards
that require conformance with fire, life safety, and building codes to ensure that new development
is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of the community.
6. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with Title 19.
All necessary chapters and section of the Title 19 have been amended to ensure internal
consistency with the proposed regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 19.08.030(A) of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code is hereby amended by editing the following definition:
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit
which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the
CC 03-03-20
110 of 873
same parcel as the primary dwelling unit is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also
includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
3. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. Junior accessory
dwelling units must include an efficiency kitchen, which must include both a cooking
facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a
reasonable size in relation to the size of the unit. A junior accessory dwelling unit may
include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure, as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.22.
SECTION 2: Section 19.08.030(L) of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended by editing the following definition:
“Living space” means, for the purposes of Chapter 19.112, the same as that set forth for
“living area” in California Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(4). All attic and basement
square footage proposed as part of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be limited by the
maximum size allowed per Chapter 19.112.
SECTION 3: Section 19.08.030(S) of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended by editing the following definition:
“Single family residence,” for purposes of Chapter 19.112, shall mean one dwelling
unit located on a separately owned lot. Single family residence does not include
property with only air parcels or condominiums.
SECTION 4: Table 19.20.020 of Section 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 of Title 19 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 19.20.020–Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones
Uses Zoning Districts
A A1 R1 RHS R1C R2 R3
NO CHANGE ROWS #1 - #6b
7. An accessory dwelling
unit that conforms to the
requirements of Chapter
19.112;
P P P P P P P
NO CHANGE ROWS #8 - #42
CC 03-03-20
111 of 873
SECTION 5: Chapter 19.112 “Accessory Dwelling Units” of Title 19 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.112.010 Purpose.
19.112.020 Accessory Dwelling Units Regulations.
19.112.030 Site development regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units &
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
19.112.040 Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units.
19.112.050 Review process.
19.112.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the goal of affordable housing within the City
through provision of additional housing in certain residential , agricultural, and mixed-
use zoning districts in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts of accessory dwelling
units on neighborhoods.
19.112.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary:
1. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on lots within any residential or mixed-use
residential zoning district. The lot must have an existing single family dwelling unit or if
zoned multi-family or mixed use residential, at least one residential unit . If the lot is
vacant, an accessory dwelling unit may only be proposed in conjunct ion with the
development of at least one residential unit. Notwithstanding the underlying zoning, an
accessory dwelling unit developed pursuant to this chapter does not cause the lot upon
which it is located to exceed its maximum the allowable density on the lot.
2. Accessory dwelling units must comply with the site development regulations and
guideline specified in those zoning districts for dwelling units, including but not limited
to: lot coverage; floor area ratio; height; setbacks; landscape; the regulations contained in
this chapter; Chapter 19.100, Accessory Structures/Buildings; and Chapter 19.124,
Parking; except as those standards are modified by this chapter.
3. No impact fees, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2(f), shall be imposed
on any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit with a gross floor area
of less than 750 square feet. Impact fees for all other accessory dwelling units shall be
charged in compliance with State Law.
CC 03-03-20
112 of 873
4. Accessory dwelling units may be rented separately from the single-family dwelling
or multi-family dwelling structure but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately
from the other dwellings on the lot, except pursuant to Government Code Section
65852.26. Any accessory dwelling unit, including a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(JADU), shall not be used as a short-term rental.
5. For JADUs, either the single-family residence or JADU must be owner-occupied,
unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. Further,
the owner shall record a deed restriction, expressly enforceable against future purchasers,
containing the following: (a) a prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the
single-family residence, and (b) a restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU to
conform to this section.
19.112.030 Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
& Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2(e), the City shall approve t he
following streamlined accessory dwelling units if the specified development standards
and use restrictions are met, as identified in:
A. Table 19.112.030A for single-family developments and
B. Table 19.112.030B for multi-family developments.
Table 19.112.030A: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single-Family Developments
Conversion of space within
principal dwelling unit or
accessory structures
New Construction Detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit ≤ 800 s.f.
1. Size of living space, exclusive of decks
a. Minimum size 150 s.f.
b. Maximum size
No size limitation as long as the
unit:
i. Is wholly within the space of a
proposed or existing single-
family dwelling or the existing
space of an accessory structure,
and
ii. Does not require either:
An addition of more than
150 square feet to an existing
800 s.f.
CC 03-03-20
113 of 873
Table 19.112.030A: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single-Family Developments
Conversion of space within
principal dwelling unit or
accessory structures
New Construction Detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit ≤ 800 s.f.
accessory structure to
accommodate ingress and
egress only, or
Any addition to an existing
single-family dwelling unit.
2. Number of Units
Two accessory dwelling units are allowed only if one of the accessory
dwelling units is a detached unit built pursuant to this Table
19.112.030A and the other is a junior accessory dwelling unit.
Otherwise, only one accessory dwelling unit is allowed per lot.
3. Setbacks
Per the underlying zoning district
except that if the existing
structures do not meet these
standards, the side and rear
setbacks shall be sufficient for fire
safety and life safety.
a. At least four feet from the rear
and side lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.
4. Height The conversion shall not change the
height of the existing structure.
a. 16 feet
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.
5.
Second-story
accessory dwelling
unit
Allowed if the unit is a conversion
of existing second story portions of
the principal dwelling unit
Not Allowed
6.
Parking for
accessory dwelling
unit
None
None
7. Direct outside access Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through
the principal dwelling unit.
CC 03-03-20
114 of 873
Table 19.112.030A: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single-Family Developments
Conversion of space within
principal dwelling unit or
accessory structures
New Construction Detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit ≤ 800 s.f.
8.
Separation from
principal dwelling
unit
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. With the
exception of a JADU that has a
shared bathroom with the
principal dwelling unit, no
interior doors or other connections
between the units are permitted.
Detached from principal dwelling
unit
Table 19.112.030B: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
Associated with Existing Multi-Family Developments
Conversions of interior space within
multifamily dwelling structures Detached, New Construction
1. Location
Conversion of space within existing
dwelling structures that is not used as
livable space (e.g. existing units)
including, but not limited to, storage
rooms, boiler rooms, passageways,
attics, basements, or garages, as long
as the unit meets building standards
for dwellings.
Detached from the multi-family
dwelling structure(s)
2. Number of
Units
The greater of:
25 percent of the existing number
of primary dwelling units, or
One accessory dwelling unit.
No more than two units
3. Minimum Size 150 s.f.
4. Maximum Size No size limitation 1,200 s.f.
CC 03-03-20
115 of 873
Table 19.112.030B: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units
Associated with Existing Multi-Family Developments
Conversions of interior space within
multifamily dwelling structures Detached, New Construction
5. Setbacks
The accessory dwelling unit shall not
increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. Located at least four feet from
the side and rear lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.
6. Height
The accessory dwelling unit shall not
increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. 16 feet
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.
7.
Separation
from principal
dwelling unit
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. No interior doors or
other connections between the units
are permitted.
Detached from principal
dwelling unit.
19.112.040 Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units.
Any accessory dwelling unit that does not meet the criteria of Section 19.112.030 shall
meet the following development standards and use restrictions as identified in Table
19.112.040.
Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit
Attached Detached > 800 s.f.
A. Number of Units
Only one accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Table 19.112.040 is
permitted and cannot be combined with any accessory dwelling units
pursuant to Table 19.112.030A.
B. Size of living space, exclusive of decks
1. Minimum size 150 s.f.
CC 03-03-20
116 of 873
Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit
Attached Detached > 800 s.f.
2. Maximum size
a. Studios/one-bedroom unit – 850 s.f.; two or more-bedroom unit –
1,000 s.f.; and
b. Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the
existing primary dwelling
c. Application of lot coverage, floor area, and open space standards:
i. Maximum size for units ≤ 800 s.f. shall not be limited by lot
coverage, floor area ratio, and open space requirements per
the underlying zoning.
ii. Maximum size for units > 800 s.f. are limited by lot coverage,
floor area ratio, and open space requirements per the
underlying zoning. These standards shall apply to the gross
floor area of the unit proposed. Notwithstanding application
of these standards, an 800 s.f. detached accessory dwelling
unit is permitted pursuant to Table 19.112.030A or an 800 s.f.
attached accessory dwelling unit is permitted.
C. Setbacks1
Per the underlying zoning
district, except the required
side and rear setbacks are
modified to four feet.
The proposed structure must
comply with the setback standards
for accessory structures in Chapter
19.100, except the street side
setbacks are modified to four feet.
D. Height Per the underlying zoning
district
The proposed structure must
comply with the height standards
for accessory structures in Chapter
19.100, except that a maximum
height of 16 feet is allowed at the
farthest point of the proposed
structure from the rear and side
property lines.
E. Second-story accessory
dwelling units Not allowed Not allowed
1 No setback is required for an accessory dwelling unit located within existing living area or an existing
accessory structure, or an accessory dwelling unit that replaces an existing structure and is located in the
same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced.
CC 03-03-20
117 of 873
Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit
Attached Detached > 800 s.f.
F. Parking
1. Parking for
accessory dwelling
unit
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 accessory dwelling
unit meets one of the following requirements:
a. Located within one-half (1/2) mile of a public transit stop; or
b. Located in an architecturally and historically significant historic
district; or
c. The occupant of the unit is not allowed/offered a required on-
street parking permit; or
d. Located within one block of a car share vehicle pick-up location;
or
e. Is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an
accessory structure.
2. Replacement
parking spaces for
existing covered,
uncovered or
enclosed parking
spaces converted to
an accessory
dwelling unit
No replacement parking spaces are required.
G. Direct outside access Independent outdoor access must be provided without going
through the principal dwelling unit.
H. Screening from public
street
All access to accessory dwelling units shall be on a different wall
plane than the access to the principal dwelling unit.
I. Structure Design Should be compatible with the architectural style and materials of
the principal structure.
CC 03-03-20
118 of 873
Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non-Streamlined Accessory Dwelling
Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit
Attached Detached > 800 s.f.
J. Separation from
principal dwelling unit
The ADU must be an
independent unit. No interior
doors or other connections
between the ADU and the
principal dwelling unit are
permitted.
Detached from principal dwelling
unit.
19.112.050 Review Process.
Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this
chapter shall be reviewed ministerial without discretionary review and must be
approved or denied within the time frame specified in Government Code Section 65852.2.
SECTION 6: 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 7: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by
Government Code Section 36937.
SECTION 8: 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 9: 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.
CC 03-03-20
119 of 873
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the ____ day
of ___________ 2020 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council
on this ____ of __________ 2020 by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
__________________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
_ _____ __________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Heather Minner, City Attorney
________________________
Date
CC 03-03-20
120 of 873
same parcel as the primary dwelling unit is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also
includes the following:
1.An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
3. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in
size and contained entirely within an existing single‐family structure. Junior accessory
dwelling units must include an efficiency kitchen, which must include both a cooking
facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a
reasonable size in relation to the size of the unit. A junior accessory dwelling unit may
include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing
structure, as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.22.
SECTION 2: Section 19.08.030(L) of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended by editing the following definition:
“Living space” means, for the purposes of Chapter 19.112, the same as that set forth for
“living area” in California Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(4). All attic and basement
square footage proposed as part of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be limited by the
maximum size allowed per Chapter 19.112.
SECTION 3: Section 19.08.030(S) of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended by editing the following definition:
“Single family residence,” for purposes of Chapter 19.112, shall mean one dwelling
unit located on a separately owned lot. Single family residence does not include
property with only air parcels or condominiums.
SECTION 4: Table 19.20.020 of Section 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 of Title 19 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 19.20.020–Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones
Uses Zoning Districts
A A1 R1 RHS R1C R2 R3
NO CHANGE ROWS #1 ‐ #6b
7.An accessory dwelling
unit that conforms to the
requirements of Chapter
19.112;
P P P P P P P
NO CHANGE ROWS #8 ‐ #42
Attachment BCC 03-03-20
121 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Consider approving a new 155-room seven-story hotel (24-hour operations) with
underground parking, event meeting rooms, a ground floor restaurant with separate bar, and a
rooftop lounge with separate bar by demolishing a commercial building with an area of 8,323 sq. ft.
City Actions would include General Plan Amendments to consider amending Table LU-1 by
increasing the development allocation of hotel rooms to 155 hotel rooms in the Homestead Special
Area and Figure LU-2 and Policy LU-23.2 adding Figure LU-5 to allow increased heights and
reduced building plane within the North De Anza Gateway specific to this development. City
permits would include: Development, Architectural and Site Approval, and Use Permits. A
Development Agreement is also proposed; (Application No(s): GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-
02, DA-2018-01, U-2018-02, EA-2018-03; Applicant(s): Sherly Kwok (De Anza Properties); Location:
10931 N De Anza Blvd.;APN #326-10-061 (Continued from January 21, 2020)
Conduct the public hearing and find:
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 20-005 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation
measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A).
2. Adopt Resolution No. 20-006 approving a General Plan Amendment (Attachment B).
3. Adopt Resolution No. 20-007 approving a Development Permit (Attachment C).
4. Adopt Resolution No. 20-008 approving an Architectural and Site Approval Permit
(Attachment D).
5. Adopt Resolution No. 20-009 approving a Use Permit (Attachment E).
Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 20-2195: “An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino Approving a Development Agreement for the Development of a New 7-Story,
155 Room Hotel With Associated Site and Landscaping Improvements Located at 10931 N. De Anza
Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)” (Attachment F).
File #:20-6911,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/26/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
122 of 873
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 3, 2020
Subject
Consider approving a new 155-room seven-story hotel (24-hour operations) with
underground parking, event meeting rooms, a ground floor restaurant with separate bar,
and a rooftop lounge with separate bar by demolishing a commercial building with an
area of 8,323 sq. ft. City Actions would include General Plan Amendments to consider
amending Table LU-1 by increasing the development allocation of hotel rooms to 155
hotel rooms in the Homestead Special Area and Figure LU-2 and Policy LU-23.2 adding
Figure LU-5 to allow increased heights and reduced building plane within the North De
Anza Gateway specific to this development. City permits would include: Development,
Architectural and Site Approval, and Use Permits. A Development Agreement is also
proposed; (Application No(s): GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, DA-2018-01, U-
2018-02, EA-2018-03; Applicant(s): Sherly Kwok (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N
De Anza Blvd.; APN #326-10-061
Recommended Actions
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation, and:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation
measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A).
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX approving a General Plan Amendment (Attachment B).
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX approving a Development Permit (Attachment C).
4. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX approving an Architectural and Site Approval Permit
(Attachment D).
5. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX approving a Use Permit (Attachment E).
6. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 19-XX “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving a Development Agreement for the
Development of a New 7-Story, 155 Room Hotel With Associated Site and Landscaping
Improvements Located at 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)” (Attachment F).
CC 03-03-20
123 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 2
Discussion
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Residential
Special Area: Homestead Special Area (North De Anza Gateway)
Zoning Designation: CG-rg –General Commercial with special
development conditions per Ordinance No. 436
Existing Proposed
Property Area:
Lot Area 63,787 sq. ft.
(1.46 acres)
56,278
(1.29 acres)
Floor Area (sq. ft.) 8,323sq. ft. 130,716 sq. ft.
Floor Area Ratio (sq. ft.) 0.13 2.32
Allowed Existing Proposed
Building Height: 45 ft. 18 ft. 83 ft.
Setbacks:
Front CG ordinance
references the
General Plan policies.
General Plan requires
maintaining the
primary bulk of
building below 1:1
slope line drawn
from the
arterial/boulevard
curb line
Conforms
Ranges from
0.18:1 to 0.22:1
for the sections
of the building
closest to N. De
Anza Blvd and
0.64:1 to 0.74:1
for the section of
the building
farthest from N.
De Anza Blvd.
Rear None ~90 ft. Varies between
21 ft & 43 ft
Side (north) CG-rg – Ordinance
No. 436 requires
retention of a three
car width driveway
along the northern
property line ~ 30 ft.
~60 ft. 32 ft. 6 inches
Side (south) None ~118 ft. 30 ft.
Auto Parking: (Parking Study) 183 217
Bicycle Parking: (1 per 20,000 sf) 7 8
Project Consistency with
CC 03-03-20
124 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 3
General Plan: No. Upon adoption of General Plan Amendments,
the proposed project will comply.
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Background:
Application Requests
The applicant, Sherly Kwok, representing the property owner, De Anza Properties, is
requesting permits to allow construction of a hotel on a 1.29-acre site on the Goodyear
Tire site by demolishing an existing 8,323-square-foot auto repair center and replacing it
with the following improvements (see Attachment L):
A new seven-story, 155-room hotel;
New restaurant with separate bar on the ground floor;
Rooftop lounge with separate bar;
Conference Meeting Rooms; and
Updated landscaping along the perimeter of the property, including updated
frontage improvements to provide pedestrian accessibility.
The proposed development would require a General Plan amendment, a Development
Permit, an Architectural and Site Approval Permit, and a Use Permit and the applicant
proposes a Development Agreement.
General Plan Authorization
The applicant submitted a General Plan Amendment Authorization (GPAAuth-2018-01)
application to construct a 155-room hotel. At its January 15, 2019 meeting, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 19-010 by a 4-1 vote authorizing the submission of the
application including General Plan Amendments and a Development Agreement. The
Development Agreement specifies community benefits including, but not limited to, a
one-time Community Amenity Funding payment of $500,000.
Site and Location Description
The project site is located on the west side of N. De Anza Boulevard between Interstate
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 allowed
along N. De Anza Boulevard, between Interstate 280 and the shared city boundary with
CC 03-03-20
125 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 4
Sunnyvale, include residential and commercial (which allow hotel uses with a
Conditional Use Permit) (See Figure 1).
The existing use of the site is a 8,323-
square-foot auto repair center,
Goodyear Tires. Access to the site is via
two driveways from N. De Anza
Boulevard, along the north and south
property lines, both of which also
provide access for the Homestead
Shopping center and its
loading/service areas, located to the
west of the project site. 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 up to a
maximum height of 45 feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
At its December 10, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report
and application and recommended 4-0-1 (Saxena absent) that the City Council adopt the
MND, proposed mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and approve the project (Resolution Nos. 6891, 6895, 6894, 6892, 6893, and 6890
available online at www.cupertino.org/records).
Analysis:
General Plan Compliance
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of
Commercial/Residential. The City’s General Plan uses a development allocation system
when evaluating development projects. This allows the City flexibility in developing
project and site specific mitigation measures when reviewing projects. Currently, there
are no hotel rooms available for allocation in the Homestead Special Area in the City’s
General Plan. Further, the General Plan’s Community Form Diagram establishes heights
and setbacks for development on sites within each of the Special Areas. The proposed
development is in the North De Anza Gateway within the Homestead Special Area,
which has a height limit of 45 feet and a 1:1 slope line setback from the curb line.
The applicant has proposed General Plan Amendments to allow the following:
Figure 1 Location of Subject Property
CC 03-03-20
126 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 5
Increase in the number of hotel rooms available for development (Table LU-1);
Increase in maximum allowable height (from 45 feet to 85 feet) (Figure LU-1); and
Reduction in the required building plane (setback to height ratio) on N. De Anza
Boulevard (from 1:1 to a range from 0.18:1 to 0.74:1) (Figure LU-1).
The proposed amendments to the General Plan are indicated in Attachment B (see Exhibit
GPA-1.) It should be noted that the General Plan amendments would only apply to the
proposed hotel. Should the hotel be demolished to develop a different use in the future,
the currently established height limits and building plane would apply. To clarify the
standards proposed for the General Plan Amendment, a figure was added to the General
Plan text illustrating the building planes for hotel development on the project site. This is
not a substantial change from the Planning Commission approval and merely clarifies
the building envelope that a hotel project must fit within.
Upon adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments to increase the hotel
allocation in the Homestead Special Area to 155 hotel rooms, and the height and building
plane amendments to 85 feet and 0.18:1 to 0.74:1, respectively, within the North De Anza
Gateway, the project will be consistent with the General Plan.
Staff has evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendments and concludes that based
on the net positive fiscal impacts of the project (see Attachment G) and minimal
environmental impacts of the project, the proposed amendment supports several of the
City’s other General Plan goals including:
Policy LU-1.3: Land Use in All City wide Mixed-Use Districts - Encourage land uses
that support the activity and character of mixed-use districts and economic goals.
Strategy LU-9.1.3: Economic Development and Business Retention - Encourage
new businesses and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services, add
to municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the City’s physical
environment.
Policy LU-23.2: Land Use - Primarily retail, commercial and residential uses, with some
limited quasi-public use. Redevelopment of neighborhood centers should be based on the
“neighborhood center” concept discussed earlier in this element.
Policy LU-23.3: Connectivity - Homestead Road is envisioned to become a boulevard
with bike and pedestrian improvements and new bicycle and pedestrian crossings at De
Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. This will provide better
access for people moving east/west through the city north of Interstate 280, linking
neighborhoods in the western part of the city with Homestead High School, Homestead
Square Shopping Center and Apple Campus 2 to the east.
Policy LU-23.4: Building Design – Buildings will be located closer to the street with
parking mostly to the side and rear. In the case of larger sites, large buildings may be placed
CC 03-03-20
127 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 6
behind parking; however a substantial portion of the front of the site should be lined with
active uses such as retail/restaurant pads, and plazas. Buildings should include pedestrian
oriented elements with entries, retail, lobbies, and active uses along the street. Parking areas
along the street will be screened with street trees. Residential buildings will provide stoops
and porches along the street and side streets. Taller buildings should provide appropriate
transitions to fit into the surrounding area.
Policy LU-23.5: Gateway Concept – Building and landscape design should be of high
quality and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into the northern part of Cupertino.
Policy LU-23.6: Neighborhood Buffers - Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or
landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single family residential uses.
Zoning Compliance and Conditional Use Permit
Hotel use is permitted as a conditional use in the General Commercial zone that the
property is located within. The applicant has applied for a Use Permit to allow the hotel,
associated 24-hour operations, and two separate bars - one at the hotel restaurant on the
ground level and one on the rooftop. The proposed use has been evaluated by staff and
other City agencies, including the Sheriff’s Department.
With the incorporation of standard conditions of approval (see Attachment E), such as
24-hour security surveillance, and ensuring that reimbursements are made in the event
more than usual calls are received as a result of operations, the project would be
compliant with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Use Permit contains several conditions
of approval related to the operations of the bar, including a condition of approval that
provides for review of the permit in the event there are repeated complaints as a result of
the operations, which allows the City to modify or revoke the use permit.
In addition, to maintain the net positive fiscal impacts to the City, a condition of approval
has been added that reservations longer than 29 days are not allowed, which ensures
continued collection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by the operator and remittance
to the City. The condition of approval holds the hotel operator responsible for ensuring
implementation of this condition of approval.
Development Regulations
The project site has a zoning designation of CG-rg, which was adopted by Ordinance No.
436. The ordinance defers to the development standards in the General Commercial
Zoning Ordinance (CMC § 19.60.060), except that it establishes a standard requiring a
three car width driveway along the northern property line through both this and the
Homestead Shopping Center.
CC 03-03-20
128 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 7
The height limit in the General Commercial zone is 30 feet, unless a different height is
established in the General Plan. The General Plan identifies the allowed maximum height
in the North De Anza Gateway as 45 feet; therefore, structures of up to 45 feet would be
compliant with the zoning standards. The proposed seven-story hotel (with four (4)
basement parking levels) is proposed to be 83 feet in height. As previously discussed, the
applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to accommodate the height of the
proposed building. If the General Plan Amendment is adopted, the proposed building
would comply with the zoning.
The required front yard setback in a General Commercial zone defers to policies in the
General Plan. As described previously, the project is requesting amendments to the
required 1:1 slope line from curb along North De Anza Blvd. The proposed amendment
to the slope line varies between 0.18:1 and 0.22:1 for sections of the building closest to
North De Anza Blvd between 0.64:1 and 0.74:1 for the section of the building farthest
from North De Anza Blvd.
The existing north driveway, which connects to the front parking lot at the Homestead
Square Shopping Center, will remain three car widths wide in compliance with the
standard established by Ordinance No. 436. “Three car widths” is estimated to be 30 feet,
since a travel lane for a single car is 10 feet at a minimum. The proposed driveway is 32
feet 6 inches in width.
There is no side or rear yard setback required in the General Commercial zone unless the
property abuts a residential or agricultural residential zone. Because the parcel does not
adjoin any residential property, the development setbacks are determined on a case -by-
case basis. The proposed rear and side setbacks are adequate to allow access to the
neighboring shopping center to the west, and movement within, and through, the site for
guests and garbage collection.
Site Planning and Architectural Design
The proposed hotel faces N. De Anza Blvd and has a prominent pedestrian access along
that frontage. Automobile access will be via an existing driveway along the southern
property line which would provide access to on-grade and underground parking, and
the hotel porte-cochere. The two existing driveways would continue to allow ingress and
egress by existing vehicular traffic to and from the loading and service areas behind the
Homestead Shopping Center and the parking lot of the shopping center.
The applicant has worked with staff to activate the frontage along N. De Anza Blvd. by:
Moving ancillary uses such as restrooms away to the interior of the building while
a pre-function area, the restaurant, conference room, and other active spaces are
now located closer to the street.
A pedestrian only entrance has been provided along the street.
CC 03-03-20
129 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 8
Outdoor seating areas will be located along the front of the hotel.
Parking is located underground to reduce the height of the building.
The proposed design quality of the hotel has been reviewed by staff and the City’s
architectural consultant. The style and quality of materials, as well as the general layout
of the building, appear to be consistent with the recommendations from Staff and the
City’s architectural consultant. The massing of the building has been minimized by
minimizing the size of the balconies and having varying façade depths.
The edge of the roofline, and the façade balconies, encroach into the public right-of-way
along N. De Anza Blvd. A condition of approval of the Development Permit (see
Attachment C) requires the developer to enter into an encroachment agreement with the
City to allow these features. The encroachment agreement will be limited to the length of
time that the hotel is in operation.
Landscaping and Trees
The applicant is not proposing to remove any of the existing trees onsite . The project
proposes a setback of between 15 to 20 feet from the back of the street curb, which would
allow for a 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5-10 feet of landscaping/tree planting area. A
minimum planting area of five feet is recommended to allow for tree planting and long
term health of landscaping. Because the increased height and reduced setback of the
proposed building would add significant mass and bulk along N. De Anza Blvd,
particularly since other buildings are not as tall or as close to the street, 11 new trees are
proposed to be planted along the frontage and northern façade of the building to
minimize the visual bulk of the building. These trees will be Protected trees and have
been conditioned as such in Attachment D.
Parking
The City’s Municipal Code requires parking to be provided at a rate of one (1) space per
hotel employee and one (1) space per room, for a total of 175 parking spaces (155 hotel
rooms and 20 employees). The City retained Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
a transportation-engineering firm, to prepare a parking analysis to determine appropriate
parking standards for the proposed use, including the publicly accessible rooftop lounge
and conference facilities (see Attachment H).
The analysis concluded that the peak hour parking demand for this development would
be 183 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed a total of 217 parking spaces onsite,
exceeding the estimated parking demand by 34 parking spaces.
Demolition
The project would involve the demolition of the existing building, which is 8,323 sq. ft. in
size. The construction of the project is estimated to take place over a period of
CC 03-03-20
130 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 9
approximately two (2) years. The project will be required to comply with the mitigation
measures identified in the IS/MND (discussed below in the Environmental Assessment
section) which would be adopted as conditions of approval (see Attachment A) and the
City’s demolition and construction requirements (see Attachment C).
Signage
Signage details are excluded from this permit application. Staff will review the signage
proposal with the property owner at the time the applicant applies for a sign permit
through the Building Division.
Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services
Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County
Fire Department have reviewed the project and have no objections.
Development Agreement
The applicant is proposing a development agreement (DA) as part of the project, see
Attachment F. The DA includes voluntary community amenities offered by the project
applicant through the General Plan Amendment Authorization process. These are
offered in exchange for certainty regarding regulations, standards, and conditions that
will apply to the project during the life of the DA, which has a five (5) year term.
Impact fees that are standard or required, such as housing and school fees, are not
included in the consideration of public benefits. Public benefits are characterized as
voluntary contributions in excess of required fees. The benefits included in the DA are
outlined below. Key contributions include:
1. Community Amenity Funding: The Developer agrees to pay the City $500,000 in
installments which may be used in any part of the City to benefit re sidents,
businesses, and visitors, including on projects that will enhance and enrich the
experience of the most City residents, retail and restaurant customers, and hotel
guests closest to the project. Staff has identified as candidates to receive these funds:
local transportation facilities, Transportation Management Association start -up
costs, local public art, and landscaping beautification improvements in public parks,
parkways, or roadway medians.
2. Shuttle Service: The Developer shall provide access to a shuttle service to hotel guests,
people traveling to or from the hotel that use the hotel’s meeting rooms for functions,
and, subject to availability, nearby residents, businesses, and the general public to
travel between the hotel and airports and major employment centers.
CC 03-03-20
131 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 10
3. Meeting Rooms: The Developer shall allow the City and Cupertino public schools to
use the hotel’s meeting rooms for official business 12 days per year, subject to
availability.
4. Rooftop Amenity: The Project shall include an enclosed publicly accessible rooftop
amenity including but not limited to outdoor deck seating, bar, or restaurant, not to
exceed the height of any rooftop mechanical equipment enclosure, for as long as the
Project is in operation, all or in part, as a hotel.
5. Minimum Hotel Standard: The Developer has committed to maintaining the project as
an upscale boutique hotel, which means that the hotel will charge higher rates and
provide superior amenities to most hotels.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the
project (See Attachment I.) The IS/MND identifies mitigation measures to reduce the
potential environmental impacts of the project to less than significant levels . The
mitigation measures would be adopted and made conditions of approval for this project.
The areas in which mitigation measures have been identified are:
Air Quality: Construction shall comply with BAAQMD’s best management practices
for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust, and shall ensure construction
emissions are reduced.
Biological Resources: The project shall protect nests of raptors and other birds when
they are in active use.
Cultural and Tribal Resources: The project shall implement identified measures in the
event any cultural or archaeological resources are found on the site. This includes
consulting with appropriate tribes as well as an archeologist.
Geology and Soils: The project shall follow the identified measures if paleontological
artifacts, such as fossils, are found on the site, which include consulting with a
paleontologist.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project shall offset project emissions to below 1,100
MTCO2e per year, for a period of 30 years, through purchase of voluntary carbon
offsets or forecasted mitigation units (FMUs).
Noise: Construction activities shall comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and best
management practices for noise mitigation.
Utilities: Demonstrate to the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District that
the hotel would not exceed peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara
sanitary sewer system prior to issuance of building permits.
The project does not have any transportation impacts based on the traffic analysis
prepared for the project. The analysis indicates that the project would a generate total of
CC 03-03-20
132 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 11
73 net new AM peak hour trips, and a total of 87 net new PM peak hour trips (See
Attachment 9: Table 5 - Project Trip Generation Estimates). The results of the level of
service analysis show that all five of the study intersections would operate at an
acceptable level of service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic . The
applicant is required to pay the City Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program in
compliance with the General Plan and the City Municipal Code Chapter 14.02. In
addition, as part of voluntary community benefits described in the Development Agreement
section above, the applicant has proposed to provide a shuttle service for hotel guests
and, subject to availability, for residents, employees of businesses, and the general public,
traveling between the hotel and San Jose and San Francisco International Airports and
major employment centers, which would alleviate some of the traffic to and from the
project.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a MND was placed in the newspaper on July 19, 2019.
In addition, the NOI was mailed to notify neighbors and interested parties that a Draft
MND had been prepared which the City intends to adopt. Written comments were
invited between June 28, 2019 and July 29, 2019. No comments were received during the
30-day Public Review Period. One comment letter addressing the IS/MND was received
in December 2019 after the 30-day Public Review Period (further discussed below).
At its August 1, 2019 meeting, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2018-
03) with the identified mitigation measures on a 5-0-0 vote (see Attachment J).
Public Outreach and Noticing
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent, Site
Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
Site Signage (10 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days
prior to the hearing)
Public hearing notices were mailed to
property owners citywide (10 days prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City’s official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s
website (one week prior to the hearing)
Ten (10) public comment letters and emails have been received as of the date of
production of this staff report (February 25, 2020) (see Attachment J). Three of the
comments submitted are in opposition to the project and the proposed General Plan
Amendments but do not comment on the adequacy of the IS/MND.
CC 03-03-20
133 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 12
Comment letters, submitted by J. Michael Goolsby, President and CEO of Better
Neighborhoods, Inc., dated December 2, 2019 and January 21, 2020 are related to the
environmental review and General Plan Amendment. Another letter was submitted by
Michael Lozeau, Lozeau Drury LLP, on January 20, 2020 specifically challenging the
noticing for the project and commenting on the environmental review. While the
comments were received after the close of the 30-day Public Review Period on the MND,
it is the City’s practice to respond to late comments; therefore, responses to the CEQA
portions of the comment letters have been prepared (see Attachments K & L).
With regard to the comment letter questioning the noticing for the project, noticing for
the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 and the City Council meeting
(which was continued) on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 was conducted in accordance with
the City’s standard noticing procedures. On August 1, 2019, the City received a letter
from Lozeau Drury LLP requesting they be notified of any and all actions or hearings
related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified
by the City and any of its subdivisions on the Project. Because the letter indicated that
email notification was an acceptable mode of notification, the firm was included in the e-
notification list for the project. On November 6, 2019, an e -notification was sent to all
subscribers alerting them of the Planning Commission hearing date scheduled for
December 10, 2019.
In his January 21, 2020 letter, Mr. Goolsby states that the proposed General Plan
Amendment, which concerns the height of the hotel structure, is “the worst sort of ‘spot
zoning.’” However, hotel uses are a conditional use within the CG-rg zone. The mix of
the surrounding area consists of mostly commercial uses, including a hotel (owned by
the same developer) to the south, with high density residential to the east and north. The
General Plan Amendment process is a robust process with significant community input.
Permit Streamlining Act
This application is not subject to the time limits in the Permit Streamlining Act
(Government Code Section 65920 et seq.) because the proposed General Plan
Amendments and Development Agreement are legislative actions.
Fiscal Impacts
The project will generate net positive fiscal impacts to the City’s annual budget due to
the collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes. This is estimated to be $1 - 1.5 million a year.
As previously mentioned, to ensure collection of the TOT, a condition of approval has
been added that reservations may not be made that exceed 29 consecutive nights of stay.
CC 03-03-20
134 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 13
Sustainability Impacts
The project will incorporate a green roof on the second floor and is designed to achieve
LEED silver. Further, via the City’s Zero Waste Policy will require that the project recover
and divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated by the project.
Conclusion
Planning Commission recommends approval of the project because the project and
conditions of approval address all concerns related to the proposed development and all
of the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapters 19.144,
19.156, 19.168, and 19.60, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made.
Next Steps
A second reading of the Ordinance for the DA is currently scheduled for March 17, 2020.
The Ordinance will take effect 30 days after the second reading. The Development
Agreement will not take effect until the Ordinance takes effect and the Development
Agreement is signed by all parties. The General Plan Amendment will take effect 30 days
after adoption because it is a legislative action; therefore, the other permit approvals and
Development Agreement will not take effect until the General Plan Amendment takes
effect.
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Approved by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved by Submission by: Deborah Feng, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Draft Resolution EA-2018-03 – Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation
measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B – Draft Resolution GPA-2018-01 – General Plan Amendment
C – Draft Resolution DP-2018-01 – Development Permit
D – Draft Resolution ASA-2018-02 – Architectural and Site Approval Permit
E – Draft Resolution U-2018-02 – Use Permit
F – Draft Ordinance DA-2018-01 – Development Agreement between the City and
Northwest Properties LP
G - Fiscal Analysis of the De Anza Hotel GPA Application
CC 03-03-20
135 of 873
GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-2018-02, De Anza Hotel March 3, 2020
U-2018-02, DA-2018-01, EA-2018-03 10931 N De Anza Blvd. Page 14
H – Parking Generation Analysis for the Proposed Hotel Located at 10931 N. De Anza
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA, dated June 19, 2019
I - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, ERC Recommendation dated August 1
J – Public Comments
K – Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Memo dated
December 5, 2019
L - Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Memo for
City Council dated February 20, 2020.
M – Project Plans
1197841.9
CC 03-03-20
136 of 873
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SEVEN (7) STORY, 155
ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT
10931 NORTH DE ANZA BLVD. (APN: 326-10-061)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EA-2018-03
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application on March 20, 2018 for a General
Plan Amendment, Development Permit, Development Agreement, Architectural and Site
Approval Permit, and Use Permit, to allow the development of a new 7-story, 155 room
hotel with associated site and landscaping improvements, and associated environmental
review (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) ("CEQA
Guidelines"), the City prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2019079010) (“IS/MND”) for the De Anza Hotel
Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is described in the July 2, 2019 “Public Draft Initial Study for The
De Anza Hotel Project (“Draft IS/MND”); and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2019 the City issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2019 the IS/MND for the project was distributed to responsible
agencies and the public for review and comment for a 30-day period that ended July 29,
2019; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that significant environmental effects on Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
CC 03-03-20
137 of 873
Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems would be avoided or
reduced to less-than-significant levels by mitigation measures (“MM”) identified in the
IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review
Committee held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony and reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Draft IS/MND, and voted 5-0-0 to
recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft IS/MND (EA-2018-03) and mitigation
measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the
IS/MND together with the comments and the responses to those comments prior to taking
action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the comments received by the Planning Commission do not require major
revisions to the IS/MND due to new or substantially more severe significant effects on
the environment; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive staff’s presentation and public testimony, and to consider the
information contained in the IS/MND along with all staff reports, other pertinent
documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at the public
hearing, and recommended on a 4-0 vote (Saxena Absent), based on substantial evidence
in the record, that the City Council adopt the MND, adopt and incorporate into the Project
and implement as conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the project
that are identified in the IS/MND, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the comment period on the IS/MND the City received
10 letters and emails containing comments on the Draft IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, text revisions made after publication of the Draft IS/MND, which are found
in the December 5, 2019 and February 20, 2020 Cupertino De Anza Hotel Project Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Memos, merely
clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the IS/MND, and recirculation of
the IS/MND is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the IS/MND
together with the comments and the responses to those comments prior to taking action
on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the comments received by the City Council do not require major revisions to
the IS/MND due to new or substantially more severe significant effects on the
environment; and
CC 03-03-20
138 of 873
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020 prior to taking action on the Project, the City Council held
a duly noticed public hearing to receive staff’s presentation and public testimony, and to
further consider the information contained in the IS/MND, along with all staff reports,
other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at
the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the IS/MND, comments on the IS/MND, maps, facts,
exhibits, testimony, staff reports, public comments, and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the City Council:
1. Finds that the IS/MND for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
2. Finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence
that the Project as proposed and mitigated will have a significant effect on the
environment.
3. Finds that the text revisions to the IS/MND merely clarify, amplify or make
insignificant modifications to the IS/MND; therefore, recirculation of the IS/MND is
not required.
4. Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.
5. Adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures identified in
the IS/MND. The City Council further makes the mitigation measures, which are
listed below, required conditions of approval of the Project to the extent they are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City:
a. AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply
with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District best management
practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to
control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be
used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
CC 03-03-20
139 of 873
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space
between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often
as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the
construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if
possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets
free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from
public roadways.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition and/or
building permits, the construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate the following,
during construction, on all plans:
The use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters
for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for
verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her
designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and
number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning
Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level
3 Diesel Particulate Filters emissions standards for construction equipment
over 50 horsepower.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction
documents that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted
to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule
2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
b. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected
when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
CC 03-03-20
140 of 873
California of Fish and Game Code. The construction contractor shall indicate the
following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required tree
removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31).
Preconstruction surveys shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading,
demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are
not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities
outside the nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or
construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area
after which surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be
implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer
contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around
each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account
the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300
feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout
the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if
project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds.
Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation
with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest
and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
c. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing (including grading,
demolition and/or construction) activities:
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified
and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate
in the recovery of the materials. Work may proceed on other parts of the project
CC 03-03-20
141 of 873
site while mitigation for tribal cultural resources, historical resources or unique
archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the
resource to the California Register of Historical Places and the City Building
Department. The report shall also include appropriate recommendation s
regarding the significance of the find and appropriate mitigations as follows:
o If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the
significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
o If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the
consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to
evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate
and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation mea sures, in
light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design,
costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary,
and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific
analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to
current professional standards.
d. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
e. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the
following in all grading, demolition, and construction plans:
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during
grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be
temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a
City-approved qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance
of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine
procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at
the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the
CC 03-03-20
142 of 873
project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The excavation
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
implementation.
f. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall offset a minimum of 173
metric tons metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year
for a period of 30 years (5,190 MTCO2e) through the purchase of voluntary carbon
offsets (i.e., not compliance offsets) from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) approved Offset Project Registries (i.e., Climate Action Reserve, Verra,
American Carbon Registry) or forecasted mitigation units (FMUs) (GHG
Mitigation Credits) from the Climate Action Reserve’s Climate Forward program.
The voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs must be real, additional, permanent,
confirmable, and enforceable. The order of preference for purchase of voluntary
carbon offsets or FMUs shall be as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of California; then 4) elsewhere
in the United States. Evidence of payments, and funding of an escrow-type
account or endowment fund shall be submitted to the City by the project applicant.
Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall submit
to the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee, the
necessary documentation to verify the agreement to purchase the necessary
voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs to offset project emissions to below 1,100
MTCO2e per year.
g. NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all
demolition, grading, and construction plans, as required by the CMC,
Construction activities shall take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition, the
construction crew shall adhere to the following best management practices shall
be observed:
At least 90 days prior to the start of construction activities, all offsite businesses
and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned
construction activities. The notification will include a brief description of the
project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would
occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should
include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration
complaint.
CC 03-03-20
143 of 873
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction
Noise Control Plan to the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement
for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or
building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance
with the 80 dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise
Control Plan, including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of
the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set,
shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager, and shall include,
but not be limited to, the following available controls to comply with the 80
dBA performance standard:
o At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be
posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which
includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone
numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that ar e
assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the
authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the
City.
o During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used
for project construction will utilize the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds), wherever feasible.
o Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including
concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could
include, but are not limited to, erecting temporary plywood noise barriers
between areas where concrete saws will be used and nearby sensitive
receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and
undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to
nearby sensitive receptors.
o During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will
be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be
muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or
other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
o During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will be
conducted simultaneously to the degree feasible in order to reduce the time
periods of these operations.
o Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and
submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval
prior to the start of the construction phase.
CC 03-03-20
144 of 873
o Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site
construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the
prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be
turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
o During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the
use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells
will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will
use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based
on the background noise level, or switch off back -up alarms and replace
with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
h. UTILITIES AND SERVICES MITIGATION MEASURE
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for
the proposed De Anza Hotel Project that would result in exceeding the permitted
peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary
sewer system. The project applicant may demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel
would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary
sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:
1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather
flows; or
2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water
consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other
methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable
levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
3. The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated
using the generation rates used by the CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the
Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas &
Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates
achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant
based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet
weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be
multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their December
2019 flow modeling analysis.
6. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, as
amended, attached hereto as Exhibit EA-1, and incorporated herein by reference,
which incorporates all the mitigation measures identified in the Final IS/MND.
CC 03-03-20
145 of 873
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
CC 03-03-20
146 of 873
Exhibit EA-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
De Anza Hotel
10931 North De Anza Blvd.,
APN: 326-10-061
January 2020
CC 03-03-20
147 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall
comply with the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District best
management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust
(PM10 and PM2.5):
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as
needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control
dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or
require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the
minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of
the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible)
or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed
water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as
needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff from public roadways.
During the construction
and post-construction
phases, the project
proponent shall be
responsible for
implementing these
measures, including
improvements.
Improvements
related to these
measures shall
be printed on
all construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans
and shall be reviewed by
the Director of
Community
Development and the
Director of Public Work
prior to the issuance of
grading and/or building
permits.
City of Cupertino
Public Works and
Building Departments
CC 03-03-20
148 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
and/or building permits, the construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate
the following, during construction, on all plans:
The use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel
Particulate Filters for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site
for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or
his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained
in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the
requirement for Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters emissions
standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction
documents that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is
restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air
Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this
requirement is met.
Project proponent to ensure
inclusion of these
requirements in all
contracts and permit
documents. Prior to the
issuance of any
construction permit.
Provide documentation
demonstrating
compliance (i.e.
specifications of vehicles
and equipment) and on
the construction
drawings clearly show
the requirement for
Level 3 Diesel
Particulate Filters
emissions standards for
construction equipment
over 50 horsepower.
City of Cupertino
Public Works,
Planning, and
Building Departments
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be
protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California of Fish and Game Code. The construction
contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if
construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the
breeding season (February 1 and August 31). Preconstruction surveys
shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or
grading, demolition, or co nstruction activities. Note that
preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or
Project proponent to add
this to all construction
plans and contracts to
ensure biologist conducts
pre-construction surveys as
required.
If grading and/or tree
removal begins during
the stated dates in the
mitigation measure, A
final report of nesting
birds, including any
protection measures,
shallbe submitted tothe
Director of Community
Development prior to
the start of demolition.
Community
Development
Department
CC 03-03-20
149 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting
period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal
or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated
in the area after which surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young
birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds
shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until
the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall
include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated
by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or
equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified
biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their
tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In
general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors
and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and
confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting
the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified
biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have
left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer
active.
CC 03-03-20
150 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface
cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing (including
grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall
be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted. The
contractor shall cooperate in the recovery of the materials. Work
may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for
tribal cultural resources, historical resources or unique
archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation
of the resource to the California Register of Historical Places and the
City Building Department. The report shall also include appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and
appropriate mitigations as follows:
If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess
the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric –
the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate
tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the resource and to
recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing,
preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the
significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other
considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as
necessary, and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
During site excavation, the
project proponent shall be
responsible for
implementation
ofArchaeological
monitoring. Monitoring
shall be conducted during
earthmoving activities by a
qualified archaeologist.
During construction, the
project proponent and
contractor shall
beresponsible for
notification of
anydiscoveries.
All
archaeologicalmonitorin
g andreporting
measures shallbe
included inall
construction documents,
and construction
management plans,
contracts, andproject
plans and shall be
reviewed by the
CommunityDevelopmen
t Department
Community
Development Public
Works & Building
Department
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. During site excavation, the
project proponent shall be
All
archaeologicalmonitorin
Director of
CommunityDevelopm
CC 03-03-20
151 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
responsible for
implementation of
Archaeological monitoring.
Monitoring shall be
conducted during
earthmoving activities by a
qualified archaeologist.
During construction, the
project proponent and
contractor shall be
responsible for notification
of any discoveries.
g andreporting
measures shallbe
printed onall
construction documents,
contracts, andproject
plans and shall be
reviewed by the Director
ofCommunityDevelopm
ent
ent, Public Works &
Building Department
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate
the following in all grading, demolition, and construction plans:
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered
during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet
of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building
Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to
examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in
accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential
resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria
set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine
procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to
resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the
paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the
effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource
At the construction phase,
the project proponent and
contractor shall be
responsible for completing
all improvements.
All attenuation
measures shall be
printed on construction
documents, contracts,
construction
management plan, and
project plans and
reviewed by the Director
of Public Works prior to
issuance of grading
and/or building permits.
City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
CC 03-03-20
152 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to implementation.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall offset a minimum
of 173 metric tons metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e)
emissions per year for a period of 30 years (5,190 MTCO2e) through the
purchase of voluntary carbon offsets (i.e., not compliance offse ts) from the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved Offset Project Registries
(i.e., Climate Action Reserve, Verra, American Carbon Registry) or
forecasted mitigation units (FMUs) (GHG Mitigation Credits) from the
Climate Action Reserve’s Climate Forward program. The voluntary
carbon offsets or FMUs must be real, additional, permanent, confirmable,
and enforceable. The order of preference for purchase of voluntary carbon
offsets or FMUs shall be as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of California; then 4)
elsewhere in the United States. Evidence of payments, and funding of an
escrow-type account or endowment fund shall be submitted to the City by
the project applicant. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the
project applicant shall submit to the City of Cupertino Building Division
official or his/her designee, the necessary documentation to verify the
agreement to purchase the necessary voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs to
offset project emissions to below 1,100 MTCO2e per year.
Project proponent is
responsible during
construction of the project
to purchase the voluntary
carbon offsets.
Provide to City Staff
proof of purchase of said
offsets.
City of Cupertino
Planning and Building
Department
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all
demolition, grading, and construction plans. Construction activities shall
take place in compliance with CMC Chapter 10.48. In addition, the
construction crew shall adhere to the following best management practices
shall be observed:
At least 90 days prior to the start of construction activities, all offsite
businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be
notified of the planned construction activities. The notification will
include a brief description of the project, the activities that would
occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the
At the constructionphase,
the projectproponent
andcontractor shall
beresponsible
forcompleting
allimprovements.
All attenuation
measures shallbe
printed on
constructiondocuments,
contracts, construction
management plan,
andproject plans and
reviewed by the Director
of PublicWorks prior
City of Cupertino
Public Works, and
Planning and Building
Department
CC 03-03-20
153 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
construction period’s overall duration. The notification should
include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s
authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event
of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors will prepare a Construction
Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of any grading, demolition,
and/or building permits. The details of the Construction Noise
Control Plan, including those details listed herein, will be included
as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the
construction drawing set.
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign
will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the
public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as
well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s
authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event
of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s
representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City .
During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks
used for project construction will utilize the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design,
use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools,
including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible. Such
requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting
temporary plywood noise barriers between areas where concrete
saws will be used and nearby sensitive receptors; performing work
in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest
activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive
receptors.
toissuance of grading
and/or building permits.
CC 03-03-20
154 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
During the entire active construction period, stationary noise
sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible,
and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the
extent feasible.
During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will
be conducted simultaneously to the degree feasible in order to
reduce the time periods of these operations.
Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use
areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department
for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.
Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site
construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce
the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment
will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent
feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only.
The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which
automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise
level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters
in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the
City for the proposed De Anza Hotel Project that would result in
exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd
through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The projec t applicant may
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino
Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel would not exceed the peak
wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by
implementing one or more of the following methods:
Prior to the issuance of any
construction permit.
Demonstrate that the
proposed hotel would
not exceed the peak
weather flow capacity of
the Santa Clara sanitary
sewer.
Department of Public
Works and Cupertino
Sanitary District
CC 03-03-20
155 of 873
Mitigation Measure Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of Compliance Oversight of
Implementation
1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet
weather flows; or
2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or
reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed
project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer
generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction o f the CSD.
3. The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be
calculated using the generation rates used by the CSD in the Flow
Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of
Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December
6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by
the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based
on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet
weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate
shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant
to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.
1197844.5
CC 03-03-20
156 of 873
RESOLUTION NO._________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE
DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS IN THE HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREA
AND TO ALLOW INCREASED HEIGHTS AND REDUCED BUILDING
PLANE WITHIN THE NORTH DE ANZA GATEWAY SPECIFIC TO THIS
DEVELOPMENT IN FIGURE LU-1
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2018-01
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, upon review of a General Plan Amendment Authorization Application
(GPAAuth-2018-01), the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorized the applicant
to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and authorized staff to review
the proposed General Plan Amendments on January 15, 2019;
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received the application for a General Plan
Amendment as described in Section I. of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040 (Table LU-1) of the
Cupertino General Plan has insufficient hotel room allocation to accommodate a 155-
room hotel; and
WHEREAS, Figure LU-2: Community Form Diagram of the Cupertino General Plan is
revised to provide the necessary height and building plane standards for this hotel
development; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, building plane,
and height is fully described and analyzed in the July 2, 2019 Public Draft Initial Study
(“Draft IS/MND”) for The De Anza Hotel Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review Committee at its August 1,
2019 meeting reviewed the Draft IS/MND, received public comments, and voted 5-0 to
recommend that the City Council adopt of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”);
and
CC 03-03-20
157 of 873
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on December 10,
2019, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0 vote (Saxena Absent), that the
City Council adopt the MND (EA-2018-03) for the Project, adopt and incorporate into the
Project and implement as conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the
Project within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Final
IS/MND, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project
prior to taking final action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0
(Saxena Absent) vote that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-
2018-01), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6890),
approve the Development Permit (DP-2018-01) in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6892), approve the Architectural and Site Approval
Permit (ASA-2018-02) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. 6893), approve the Use Permit (U-2018-02) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6894), approve and adopt an
ordinance to approve a Development Agreement (DA-2018-01) in substantially similar
form to the Ordinance presented; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, on March 3, 2020, the City
Council held a public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution;
WHEREAS, after consideration of substantial evidence contained in the entire
administrative record, at the public hearing on March 3, 2020 the City Council adopted
Resolution No. [####] adopting the MND;
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support application
for a General Plan Amendment.
SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the City Council hereby adopts amendments to the General Plan
(Application No. GPA-2018-01) as shown in Exhibit GPA-1 and authorizes the staff to
make grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist
in production of the final published General Plan
CC 03-03-20
158 of 873
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The City Council finds this Resolution is within the scope of the Draft IS/MND and directs
the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa
Clara County Recorder in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Acting City Clerk
________________________
Date
CC 03-03-20
159 of 873
EXHIBIT GPA-1
Amend Chapter 3, Page LU-13 related to Homestead Special Area as follows:
Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040
Commercial (s.f.) Office (s.f.) Hotel (rooms) Residential (units)
Current
Built
(Oct. 7,
2014)
Buildout Available
Current
Built
(Oct. 7,
2014)
Buildout Available
Current
Built
(Oct. 7,
2014)
Buildout Available
Current
Built
(Oct. 7,
2014)
Buildout Available
(No change to Heart of the City and Vallco Shopping District)
Homestead 291,408 291,408 - 69,550 69,550 - 126 126 281 155 600 750 150
(No change to N. De Anza Blvd., N. Vallco, S. De Anza, Bubb, Monta Vista Village, Other or Major Employers)
Citywide
Totals 3,632,065 4,430,982 798,917 8,916,179 9,470,005 553,826 1,116 1,614 1,769 498 653 21,412 23,294 1,882
No changes to footnotes
Amend Chapter 3, Pages LU-16 and 17 as follows:
Figure LU-2: Community Form Diagram
North De Anza Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Hotel Development for APN 326-10-061:
Maximum Height 85 feet
Building Planes:
• Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the
arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads Area.
• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
• For projects outside of the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to
residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be
determined during project review.
• For projects within the Vallco Shopping District Special Area that are adjacent to the
North Blaney/Portal neighborhood: Maintain the primary building bulk below a 2:1
slope line drawn from the adjacent residential property line.
• For the North and South Vallco Park areas: Maintain the primary building bulk
below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height) slope line
drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1
slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line.
• Parcel APN 326-10-061 within the N. De Anza Gateway: For hotel development,
maintain the building below the variable slope lines as shown in Figure LU-5. For
all other developments, the 1:1 slope line shall be maintained.
CC 03-03-20
160 of 873
Amend Chapter 3, Page LU-61 as follows:
POLICY LU-23.2: LAND USE Primarily retail, commercial and residential uses, with
some limited quasi-public use. Redevelopment of neighborhood centers should be
based on the “neighborhood center” concept discussed earlier in this element. See
Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria and Figure LU-5 related to building
planes for hotel development on parcel APN 326-10-061.
Amend Chapter 3, Page LU-62 as follows:
LU-5 Building Planes
1198334.5
CC 03-03-20
161 of 873
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 7-STORY, 155 ROOM HOTEL ON A 1.29-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 10931
NORTH DE ANZA BLVD. (APN: 326-10-061)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DP-2018-01
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit as
described in Section I. of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review Committee at its August 1,
2019 meeting reviewed the Public Draft Initial Study (“Draft IS/MND”) for The De Anza
Hotel Project (“Project”), received public comments, and voted 4-0 (Saxena Absent) to
recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) with minor
modifications, and provided measures that ensure the least impactful development of the
proposed hotel; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the record, on December 10, 2019, the
Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the MND
(EA-2018-03) for the Project, adopt and incorporate into the Project and implement as
conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the Project within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Final IS/MND, and
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project , prior to taking
final action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0
(Saxena Absent) vote that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-
2018-01), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6890),
approve the Development Permit (DP-2018-01) in substantially similar form to the
CC 03-03-20
162 of 873
Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6892), approve the Architectural and Site Approval
Permit (ASA-2018-02) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. 6893), approve the Use Permit (U-2018-02) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6894), approve and adopt an
ordinance to approve a Development Agreement (DA-2018-01) in substantially similar
form to the Ordinance presented; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, on March 3, 2020, the City
Council held a public hearing to consider the Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, after consideration of substantial evidence contained in the
entire administrative record, and prior to consideration of the Development Permit, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. [####] adopting the MND and Resolution No. [####]
adopting the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application
for a Development Permit.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed
to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the relevant
mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate
potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental
or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
2. The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with
the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning
ordinances.
The General Plan land use designation for the property is Commercial/Residential. The
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The subject property is zoned as General
Commercial with special development conditions. As a hotel use in the general commercial
zoning district, the project is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which the
project is seeking and subject to approval, see Condition of Approval (COA) #3 in Section III.
The proposed development has met the applicable development standards of the general plan
(as approved through GPA-2018-01) and zoning district such as height, setbacks, and parking
CC 03-03-20
163 of 873
regulations. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the City’s
zoning ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project (EA-2018-03), subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 3 thereof, and those
contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project,
The application for a Development Permit , Application No. DP-2018-01, is hereby
approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified
in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application no. DP-2018-01 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of July
16, 2019 Meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 19, 2019 consisting of 44 sheets
labeled as The De Anza, Table of Contents, A0.00 – A5.15, A11.00-A11.08, C1.0-
C3.2, and L1-L4, drawn by Winkleman Designs, JMH Weiss, and The Guzzardo
Partnership, Inc. except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data
including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks,
property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or
construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate
this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. GPA-2018-01, DA-2018-01, ASA-
2018-02, U-2018-02 and EA-2018-03 shall applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on
the first page of the building plans.
CC 03-03-20
164 of 873
5. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies
with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements.
Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Community Development Department.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 155 of the hotel room allocations for the
Homestead Special Area.
7. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed project
in accordance with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
8. AUTOMOBILE PARKING
The applicant shall provide at least 183 parking spaces for the prosposed project.
9. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES
The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing
Program by paying the applicable housing mitigation fees prior to issuance of
building permits per the Housing Mitigation Manual.
10. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT
Public art shall be provided for the project in accordance with General Plan Policy
2-66 and the City’s Public Art Ordinance (Chapter 19.148 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code). The minimum expenditure for the artwork, including, but not
limited to design, fabrication, and installation is one (1) percent of the construction
valuation for the first $100 million on construction valuation, or 0.9% of
construction valuation for valuation in excess of $100 million. The project pro
forma shall be provided to the City to confirm the project budget. The public art
plans (including location and design) shall be reviewed by the Fine Arts
Commission during the building permit stage, in advance of final occupancy.
Once approved by the Fine Arts Commission, the public artwork shall be installed
to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. In the event the developer
or property owner determines that the placement of artwork on a particular
property may not be feasible, the developer or property may apply to the Fine Arts
Commission for an in-lieu payment alternative as indicated in Chapter 19.148 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code. The in lieu payment shall be 1.25% of the
construction valuation.
CC 03-03-20
165 of 873
11. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum
extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide
evidence that materials were recycled prior to occupancy.
12. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PLAN
A demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted and reviewed
prior to building permit issuance. Prior to commencement of construction
activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the
pertinent departments (Building, Planning, and Public Works) to review the
prepared construction management plan, to ensure that construction complies
with the conditions of approval, staging of construction equipment is appropriate,
tree protection measures are in place, public access routes are identified, and noise
and dust control measures are established. The plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
a. Compliance with CEQA Mitigation Measures
b. Appropriate construction staging area
c. Hours of construction
d. Compliance with the City noise ordinance
e. Best management practices
f. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within ___ feet of any
residential property.
g. Any other measures as determined to be appropriate by the Director of
Community Development
13. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND NOISE LIMITS
The applicant shall indicate compliance with the following grading and
construction hours and noise limit requirements on all demolition, construction
and grading permits, and in the construction management plan(s), unless
otherwise indicated.
a. All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1),
unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works.
b. Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements
of Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
c. Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for
work done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to
Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to
6 p.m. Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work
within 750 feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays,
CC 03-03-20
166 of 873
holidays, and during nighttime period as defined in Section 10.48.053(b) of the
Municipal Code.
d. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8
p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not
allowed on holidays as defined in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code.
Nighttime construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of
Section 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
e. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations
identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an
applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent
location at the entrance to the job site.
f. The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and
subcontractors of said construction restrictions.
14. GREEN BUILDING
The project shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building
Ordinance (Chapter 16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). The applicant shall
obtain LEED Silver certification or an alternative reference standard in accordance
with the ordinance since the building size is over 50,000 square feet. Third party
LEED certification or alternative reference standard is required per the ordinance
criteria.
15. BUILDING AND FIRE CODE
The applicant shall apply for and obtain building permits to allow the construction
of the approved project. The applicant shall provide information and plans to
allow the Building Official and the Fire Marshall or their designee that the
proposed plans comply with Building and Fire Codes in effect at the time of
application for a building permit.
16. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The
plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuse pick up schedules and truck
delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
17. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans. Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not
limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors,
CC 03-03-20
167 of 873
windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes
determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development sha ll
either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of
the change.
18. SITE LIGHTING
All new lighting must conform to the standards in the Parking Regulations
Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
building permit issuance. A report from a licensed lighting engineer may be
required to confirm all exterior lighting throughout the site complies with the
City’s Ordinance.
19. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be
screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining
developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the h eight of the
mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be
required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public
right-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of building permits.
20. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any
structures approved in conjunction with the project.
21. NOISE LEVELS AND ABATEMENT
Project use shall comply with the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance at
all times. Should the project exceed any of the stipulated maximum noise levels
outlined in the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance, an acoustical
engineer may be required to submit noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction
of the Director of Community Development at the applicant’s expense.
22. ONGOING OBLIGATIONS
The applicant shall be responsible to implement the ongoing obligation as
described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and section 5.1.2
CC 03-03-20
168 of 873
through 5.1.7 of the Development Agreement (DA-2018-01) adopted on ________
date, which includes the following:
Shuttle Service
Meeting Rooms
Reduced Rates
23. INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend with
the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and
its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from
and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment,
lien, levy, or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the
indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant
related to this Resolution/Action Letter, the related entitlements, or any permit or
approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 (thirty)
days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall
include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney
time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly
related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against
any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the
indemnified parties.
24. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
1. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Project will be subject to a Traffic Impact Analysis and Traffic Impact Fee prior to
building permit issuance. If mitigation measures are required, provide
preliminary plans for City to review and to determine the feasibility.
2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS & DEDICATION
Provide dedication and improvements of the public street along the project
frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Street
CC 03-03-20
169 of 873
improvement design and dedication must be completed and approved prior to
issuance of Building Permit. Street improvements may include, but not be
limited to, detached sidewalk, driveways, storm drain laterals, street trees,
and street light. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the
City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment
Permit acceptance whichever comes first. Pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a description of such
dedication. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in
which you may protest this dedication, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred
from later challenging such dedication.
3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements (e.g.
walkways, bicycle racks, etc.) consistent with the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Plan and the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and
as approved by the Director of Public Works.
4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the Director of Public
Works. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
5. GRADING
Prior to building permit issuance, grading shall be as approved and required by
the Director of Public Works in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits may be required. Please
contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as
appropriate.
6. DRAINAGE
Prior to building permit issuance, drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works. Hydrology and pre - and post-development
hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm
water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain
system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater
flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic
separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality.
The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on -site (e.g., via buried
CC 03-03-20
170 of 873
pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as
necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any storm water overflows or
surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and
to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible.
All storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping –
Flows to Creek” using permanently affixed metal medallions or equivalent, as
approved by the Environmental Programs Division.
7. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing
10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site).
The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the
placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment,
unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements,
is approved by the Director of Public Works.
The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control
and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be
designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan,
Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and
Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance
of treatment BMPs are each required.
All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City
approved third party reviewer. Proposed landscape for the stormwater treatment
areas shall reflect plants and materials appropriate for stormwater treatment.
8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: Per current fee schedule ($7,389.00 or 6% of
improvement costs)
b. Grading Permit: Per current fee schedule ($3,059.00 or 6% of
improvement costs)
c. Storm Drainage Fee: Per current fee schedule ($9,566 per AC)
d. Power Cost: **
CC 03-03-20
171 of 873
e. Strom Management Plan Fee: Per current fee schedule ($1,396)
f. Traffic Impact Fee Per current fee schedule ($3,421 per room –
credit for restaurant)
g. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC
Bonds:
Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
The fees described above are based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the
City Council. However, the fees required herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said
change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee
schedule.
9. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Subject to City Council approval permitting private improvements encroaching
into the public right of way, specifically the building roof and awning overhang
over the public sidewalk. Developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement
with the City to construct, use, repair, and maintain certain private improvements
within the public right of way.
10. TRASH, RECYCLING AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s Public
Works Guidelines posted at www.cupertino.org/nowaste, and to the satisfaction
of the Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works
Department is required prior to obtaining a building permit. (Sections 9.18.210 H
& K of Cupertino Municipal Code)
11. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City
prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and
maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that
may include, but is not limited to, landscaping, pavers, and streetlights.
12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
CC 03-03-20
172 of 873
underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of
the affected Utility provider and the Director of Public Works.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed
in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both
the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department
prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground
equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened
with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public
street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department.
Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area.
14. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground
equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways
to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara
County Fire Department and the water company.
15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP
plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans.
16. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB,
which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm
water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.
17. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil
Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain
materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans.
18. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show
the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project .
CC 03-03-20
173 of 873
19. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer
to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan
for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during
construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work
throughout the City.
20. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and shall be of a type approved by the City in
accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
21. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City.
22. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County
Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include
written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire
Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically, Backflow Preventers
should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire
department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
23. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire
Department as needed.
24. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide California Water Service Company approval for water connection,
service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers
before issuance of a building permit approval.
25. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary
District prior to issuance of building permits.
26. UTILITY EASEMENTS
CC 03-03-20
174 of 873
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including
PG&E, AT&T, and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will
be required prior to issuance of building permits.
SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED:
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures
shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1
through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section,
firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the
California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. NOTE: The
owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for
consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any
modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculat ions, a
completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and
approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2 as adopted and amended by
CMC.
2. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance
with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall
be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location
of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual
wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection
shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall
be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47.
CFC Sec. 905
3. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire
protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors
and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project,
and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be
incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection systems, and/or fire
suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically
connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the
potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
CC 03-03-20
175 of 873
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as
having been met by the applicant(s). 2016 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety
Code 13114.7.
4. PUBLIC /PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire
Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500
feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants
shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public
streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.
Identify the location of all existing and new fire hydrants to comply with above
mentioned code section. All new hydrants to comply with hydrant spacing
requirements.
5. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to
be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of
protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street
intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in
accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4
6. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
Commercial and Industrial Developments
a. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities
exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means
of fire apparatus access for each structure.
b. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a
gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided
with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
c. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520
mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are
equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. CFC Sec.903 as
adopted and amended by CMC.
7. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS
a. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall
be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating
CC 03-03-20
176 of 873
fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be
located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway.
b. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of
26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more
than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.
c. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this
condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of
30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire
side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. Aerial access as shown
for the Office Building is not adequate. Also, an aerial access roadway must be
provided between building A and B and building D. CFC Chp. 5 SCCFD SD&S A-
1.
8. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED:
Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum width of 20
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36
feet and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. For installation guidelines refer
to Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A -1. CFC Sec. 503.
Include all above required dimensions on the plans.
9. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND
Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installation shall conform to Fire
Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as
adopted and amended by CUPMC.
10. GROUND LADDER ACCESS
Ground-ladder access rescuer from second and third floor rooms shall be made
possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy -five
degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building
shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere
with the required access. CFC Sec. 503 and 1029 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2.
11. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with
NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California
Fire Code (2016 edition), the California Building Code (2016 edition), and the city
ordinances where two-way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other
CC 03-03-20
177 of 873
standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related
equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72.
12. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.
13. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE:
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have
Approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon
the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the
jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement
of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further
requirements.
14. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33
and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on
subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
15. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers
or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and
visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast
with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers
shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7
mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed
from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1
SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY
DISTRICT
1. IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Improvement plans shall be submitted to the District for review and comments.
2. FEES AND PERMITS
Cupertino Sanitary District fees and permits will be required.
3. LATERALS
CC 03-03-20
178 of 873
The new hotel must upsized from six-inches to eight-inches.
4. RESTAURANT AND KITCHEN
Restaurant and Kitchen area must connect to adequately sized grease control
device. Grease control devise must be sized by Cupertino Sanitary District.
SECTION VII: This Resolution shall not take effect unless and until General Plan
Amendment GPA-2018-01 becomes effective. This Resolution shall take effect on the
day that the Development Agreement for the Project takes effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
1197845.7
CC 03-03-20
179 of 873
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7-STORY, 155 ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED
SITE AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 10801 NORTH DE
ANZA BLVD. (APN: 326-10-061)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2018-02
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the all notices were given and the comment period for the application was
provided as required by the Procedural Ordinance, Chapter 19.12 of the City of
Cupertino’s Municipal Code, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public
hearing in regard to this application; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review Committee at its August 1,
2019 meeting reviewed the Public Draft Initial Study (“Draft IS/MND”) for The De Anza
Hotel Project (“Project”), received public comments, and voted 5-0 to recommend
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”), and provided measures that
ensure the least impactful development of the proposed hotel; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the record, on December 10, 2019, the
Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt of the
MND (EA-2018-03) for the Project, adopt and incorporated into the Project and
implement as conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the Project within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Final IS/MND, and
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project prior to taking
final action on the Project; and
CC 03-03-20
180 of 873
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0
(Saxena Absent) vote that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-
2018-01), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6890),
approve the Development Permit (DP-2018-01) in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6892), approve the Architectural and Site Approval
Permit (ASA-2018-02) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. 6893), approve the Use Permit (U-2018-02) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6894), approve and adopt an
ordinance to approve a Development Agreement (DA-2018-01) in substantially similar
form to the Ordinance presented; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, on March 3, 2020, upon
due notice, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Architectural and Site
Approval Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, after consideration of substantial evidence contained in the
entire administrative record and prior to consideration of the Architectural and Site
Approval Permit, the City Council adopted Resolution No. [####] adopting the MND,
Resolution No. [####] adopting the General Plan Amendment, and Resolution No. [####]
approving the Development Permit.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application
for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; all
mitigation measures identified in the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and
incorporated into the project; the project to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant
level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, the General Plan, any
specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional
use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate
CC 03-03-20
181 of 873
the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific
criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related
to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.
The proposed project is a redevelopment of a commercial site with a new seven (7)-story
building. The project will provide for a new building design that incorporates new building
requirements, provide high quality architecture, and updated frontage improvements
(furniture and landscaping) aimed at increasing pedestrian friendliness. The project does
not abut single family zoning districts and is adjacent to multi-story developments.
b) In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing building and in
order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and c olors
of new building should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent
or compatible with design and color schemes with the future character of the
neighborhoods and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location,
height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should
harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations
and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground
cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion,
and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided.
Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as
specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to
prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners.
The design quality of the proposed hotel is consistent with the high-quality standards
encouraged by City Staff. The massing of the building has been mitigated by minimizing
the size of the balconies and having varying façade depths. Unsightly uses such as loading
and trash pickup have been placed within the building away from view of neighboring uses.
Utility installation have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated
into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of
the review of the project construction documents to ensure that they meet safety
requirements while preserving spill-over light to adjacent properties.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor
advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively
affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent
development; and
Signage approval is not included in this application.
d) With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new
development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and
CC 03-03-20
182 of 873
visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other
appropriate design measures.
The project does not abut any existing residential development. The multi-family
development across N. De Anza Blvd. (Aviare) will be buffered from any impacts because
the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and allow queuing of
vehicles to be completely on-site, and because the parking entrance and porte-cochere are
located in the rear of the property. Active hotel uses are over well 100’ feet from the Aviare
apartments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project (EA-2018-03), subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution, beginning on PAGE 3 herein, and subject to the
conditions contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project,
The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2018-02, is
hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions
specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record
concerning Application no. ASA-2018-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council
Meeting of January 21, 2020 Meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 19, 2019 consisting of 44 sheets labeled
as The De Anza, Table of Contents, A0.00 – A5.15, A11.00-A11.08, C1.0-C3.2, and L1-
L4, drawn by Winkleman Designs, JMH Weiss, and The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.
except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data
including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property
size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records.
Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may
require additional review.
CC 03-03-20
183 of 873
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, DA-2018-
01, U-2018-02, and EA-2018-03 shall applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
first page of the building plans.
5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans
(including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural
treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance
of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to
ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by
the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this
permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.
6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC,
Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified
landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been
installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape
installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to
confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the
landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution
uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation
of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The
landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and
irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be
established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her
designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape
installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted.
CC 03-03-20
184 of 873
a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment
period and water requirements for established landscapes.
b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection;
pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de -
thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed
plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices.
c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that
may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall
installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through
appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as
recommended by a landscaping professional.
8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape
Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape
Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to
submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for
projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The
Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per
sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be
reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.
9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g.
texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and
provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the
productivity and water efficiency of the soil.
The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the
landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the
design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director
of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.
10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and
approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The
landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in
conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control
CC 03-03-20
185 of 873
measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
11. SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to
the City Sign Code.
12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any
structures approved in conjunction with the project.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in
underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the
Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to
installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be
permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and
landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as
determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
14. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following
measures shall be added to the protection plan:
For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other r oot protection shall be
installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers
approved by the Project Arborist.
No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in
the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted
before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.
Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-
inch depth.
Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees,
prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist
prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the
CC 03-03-20
186 of 873
trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading
or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned
above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
15. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a
detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utlity
structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department
connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and
applicable utility agencies.
16. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with
regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any
misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Community Development Department.
17. INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend with the
attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its
officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy,
or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties
or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to this
Resolution/Action Letter, the related entitlements, or any permit or approval
authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City
its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant
shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 (thirty) days following receipt of
invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the
City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and
other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation
reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or
costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties.
18. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
CC 03-03-20
187 of 873
SECTION IV: This Resolution shall not take effect unless and until General Plan
Amendment GPA-2018-01 becomes effective. This Resolution shall take effect on the day
that the Development Agreement for the Project takes effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
1197846.6
CC 03-03-20
188 of 873
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 24-HOUR HOTEL,
INCLUDING A RESTAURANT WITH A SEPARATE BAR AND A
ROOFTOP LOUNGE WITH A SEPARATE BAR LOCATED AT 10931
NORTH DE ANZA BLVD. (APN: 326-10-061)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: U-2018-02
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326-10-061)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit as described
in Section I. of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review Committee at its August 1,
2019 meeting reviewed the Public Draft Initial Study (“Draft IS/MND”)for The De Anza
Hotel Project (“Project”), received public comments, and voted 5-0 vote to recommend
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) with minor modifications, and
provided measures that ensure the least impactful development of the proposed hotel;
and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the record, on December 10, 2019, the
Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt of the
MND (EA-2018-03) for the Project, adopt and incorporated into the Project and
implement as conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the Project within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in the Final IS/MND, and
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project prior to taking
final action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-0
(Saxena Absent) vote that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (GPA-
2018-01), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6890),
CC 03-03-20
189 of 873
EXHIBIT U
approve the Development Permit (DP-2018-01) in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6892), approve the Architectural and Site Approval
Permit (ASA-2018-02) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. 6893), approve the Use Permit (U-2018-02) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6894), approve and adopt an
ordinance to approve a Development Agreement (DA-2018-01) in substantially similar
form to the Ordinance presented; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, on March 3, 2020 upon
due notice, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, after consideration of substantial evidence contained in the
entire administrative record and prior to consideration of the Use Permit, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. [####] adopting the MND, Resolution No. [####]
adopting the General Plan Amendment, Resolution No. [####] approving the
Development Permit, and Resolution No. [####] approving the Architectural and Site
Approval Permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application
for a Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application:
a) The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with
the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances.
The proposed development is in conformance with the Cupertino General Plan and Municipal
Code Requirements since the Project is consistent with the existing land use designations
(Commercial, Residential), Municipal Code requirements, including but not limited to,
parking regulations and hours of operations. A condition has been added that requires the
separate bar to operate within 7:00am to 11:00pm and consistent with the City regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
CC 03-03-20
190 of 873
EXHIBIT U
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project (EA-2018-03), subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof, and those
contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project,
The application for a Use Permit, Application No. U-2018-02, is hereby approved, and
that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application
no. U-2018-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of January 21, 2020
Meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 19, 2019 consisting of 44 sheets labeled
as The De Anza, Table of Contents, A0.00 – A5.15, A11.00-A11.08, C1.0-C3.2, and L1-
L4, drawn by Winkleman Designs, JMH Weiss, and The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.
except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data
including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property
size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records.
Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may
require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, DA-2018-
01, ASA-2018-02, and EA-2018-03 shall applicable to this approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
first page of the building plans.
5. USE APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS
Approval is hereby granted to allow a 24-hour hotel operation including a restaurant
with separate bar and a rooftop lounge with separate bar. The Planning Commission
shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of
Community Development.
CC 03-03-20
191 of 873
EXHIBIT U
6. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR SEPARATE BARS
The separate bars are authorized to operate within the hours allowed by state law.
7. MAXIMUM LENGTH OF HOTEL STAYS
Hotel stays shall be limited to a maximum of 29 days per reservation. The hotel
operator is responsible for implementation of this condition of approval.
8. SECURITY PLAN
The applicant shall develop a comprehensive security plan for the entire hotel
development, and the plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the
County Sheriff’s Office prior to final occupancy.
9. LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
The property owner shall pay for any additional sheriff enforcement time resulting
from documented incidents resulting at the project site at the City’s contracted hourly
rate with the Sheriff Department at the time of the incident.
10. USE PERMIT REVIEW/ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
If complaints have been received related to the tenant(s) under this use permit, and
the complaints were not addressed immediately by the property management to the
satisfaction of the City, then the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing
on the use permit at which time, the use permit approval may be modified or revoked.
The City reserves the right to require additional security patrols and/or parking
restrictions as prescribed by the Sheriff's Office.
11. RESTAURANT ODOR ABATEMENT
All new restaurants shall install odor abatement systems to reduce odor impacts from
the restaurants to the adjacent community. The odor abatement systems shall be
installed prior to final occupancy of the associated restaurant(s). Detailed plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Developm ent prior to
issuance of building permits.
12. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with
regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any
misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Community Development Department.
13. INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend with the
CC 03-03-20
192 of 873
EXHIBIT U
attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its
officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy,
or proceeding brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties
or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to this
Resolution/Action Letter, the related entitlements, or any permit or approval
authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City
its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant
shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30 (thirty) days following receipt of
invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the
City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and
other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation
reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or
costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties.
14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
SECTION IV: This Resolution shall not take effect unless and until General Plan
Amendment GPA-2018-01 becomes effective. This Resolution shall take effect on the day
that the Development Agreement for the Project takes effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 2020, at the Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
CC 03-03-20
193 of 873
EXHIBIT U
ATTEST:
Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk
________________________
Date
1197848.6
CC 03-03-20
194 of 873
ORDINANCE NO._______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEW 7‐STORY, 155 ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 10931 N. DE ANZA BLVD. (APN #326‐10‐061)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DA‐2018‐01
Applicant: De Anza Properties (Sherly Kwok)
Property Owner: Northwest Properties, LP
Location: 10931 N De Anza Blvd. (APN #326‐10‐061)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application on March 20, 2018 for a
General Plan Amendment, Development Permit, Development Agreement,
Architectural and Site Approval, and Use Permit to allow the development of a new 7‐
story, 155 room hotel with associated site and landscaping improvements and
associated environmental review (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, De Anza Properties has a legal and equitable interest in certain real
property consisting of approximately 1.29 acres located within the City and generally
borderd by De Anza Blvd. to the east, APN #326‐10‐058 (Cupertino Inn) to the south,
and APN #326‐10‐066 (Homestead Square) to the west (“Property”), and as more
particularly described in Exhibit A, the Development Agreement for the De Anza Hotel
Project By and Between City of Cupertion and Northwest Properties (“Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65864 through 68569.5 provide the statutory
authority for development agreements between municipalities and parties with a fee or
equitable interest in real property; and
WHEREAS, Cupertino Municipal Code Sections 19.144.010 et seq. establish additional
procedures for review and approval of proposed development agreements by the City
of Cupertino; and
WHEREAS, in March 2018, De Anza Properties requested that the City consider
entering into a Development Agreement for development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the Development Agreement include the following community
benefits funded by Northwest Properties, LP:
CC 03-03-20
195 of 873
1. Community Amenity Funding of $500,000 for local transportation facilities, start‐
up costs for the Transportation Management Association, local public art, and
landscaping for public parks, roadways, and medians;
2. Public access to a roof top lounge;
3. Shuttle service to airports and major employment centers for City residents and
employees;
4. Meeting rooms for City and public school functions;
5. Transient occupancy taxes; and
6. Minimum hotel standards.
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement will be consistent with the Cityʹs General Plan
land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses as amended and the applicable
zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Development Agreement will provide Northwest
Properties, LP with assurances that its development of the Property in connection with
the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and
development policies and requirements, which assurance will thereby reduce the actual
or perceived risk of planning, financing, and proceeding with construction and use of
the development and promote the achievement of the private and public objectives of
the development; and
WHEREAS, the Project is described and analyzed in the July 2, 2019 “The De Anza
Hotel Project” Public Draft Initial Study (“Draft IS/MND”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Environmental Review Committee at its August 1,
2019 meeting reviewed the Draft IS/MND, received public comments, and voted 5‐0‐0
to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”); and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the record, on December 10, 2019, the
Planning Commission, recommended on a 4‐0 vote (Saxena Absent), that the City
Council adopt the MND for the Project and implement as conditions of approval all of
the mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are
identified in the IS/MND, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Project prior to taking final action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended on a 4‐0
(Saxena Absent) vote that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment
(GPA‐2018‐01), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution
No. 6890), approve the Development Permit (DP‐2018‐01) in substantially similar form
to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6892), approve the Architectural and Site
CC 03-03-20
196 of 873
Approval Permit (ASA‐2018‐02) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. 6893), approve the Use Permit (U‐2018‐02) in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6894), approve and adopt an
ordinance to approve a Development Agreement (DA‐2018‐01) in substantially similar
form to the Ordinance presented; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the
procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, on March 3,
2020, upon due notice, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision‐making body for this Ordinance;
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the IS/MND and
finds that the scope of this Ordinance falls within the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration in that the aspects of the Development Agreement proposed in this
Ordinance that have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
have been examined in the IS/MDN; therefore, no recirculation of the IS/MND is
required; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, after consideration of substantial evidence contained in
the entire administrative record and prior to consideration of the Development
Agreement, the City Council adopted Resolution No. [####] adopting the MND,
Resolution No. [####] adopting the General Plan Amendment, Resolution [####]
approving the Development Permit, Resolution No. [####] approving the Architectural
and Site Approval Permit, and Resolution No. [####] approving the Use Permit;
WHEREAS, Resolution [####] approving the Development Permit, Resolution No.
[####] approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, and Resolution No. [####]
approving the Use Permit are each conditioned on the Development Agreement taking
effect; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.
Section 2. The City Council, having considered the staff report to the City
Council for the meeting of March 3, 2020, evidence received at the public hearing duly
noticed and held for the proposed Development Agreement, and all other facts,
exhibits, testimony, information and other evidence submitted in this matter or in the
record of this proceeding, finds as follows:
CC 03-03-20
197 of 873
A. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the
objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, as
amended.
B. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the
Project is located.
C. The proposed Development Agreement conforms with and will
promote public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice.
D. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, or general welfare.
E. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect
the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.
F. The proposed Development Agreement will promote and
encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of certainty.
Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement in
the form attached as Exhibit DA‐1 subject to such minor technical conforming changes
as may be approved by the City Attorney.
Section 4. This approval is based on the City Council’s independent judgment
in consideration of and reliance on the IS/MND and in accordance with the plans,
details, and descriptions contained therein, and on the Resolution adopting the
IS/MND.
Section 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute
the Development Agreement on behalf of the City.
Section 6. The City Council directs the Director of Community Development
to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa Clara County Recorder in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) .
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be of no force and effect unless and until
General Plan Amendment GPA‐2018‐01 becomes effective. The Development
Agreement shall not take effect until this Ordinance takes effect and the Development
Agreement is signed by all parties.
CC 03-03-20
198 of 873
INTRODUCED at a Regular Meeting of the Cupertino City Council on the 3rd day of
March 2020, AND ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on the
17th day of March, 2020, by the following roll call vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
__________________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
_ _____ __________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Acting City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Heather Minner, City Attorney
________________________
Date
1197850.7
CC 03-03-20
199 of 873
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Attention: City Manager
Record for the Benefit of
The City of Cupertino
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383
Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AND
NORTHWEST PROPERTIES
a California Limited Partnership
Effective Date: ____________________
CC 03-03-20
200 of 873
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................. 3
ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ............................................................................ 8
2.1 Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Term of Agreement ................................................................................................ 8
2.3 City Representations and Warranties ..................................................................... 8
2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties ........................................................... 8
ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY ................................................................. 9
3.1 Vested Rights ......................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Life of Approvals ................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Permitted Uses ....................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Applicable City Regulations ................................................................................ 10
3.5 Timing of Development ....................................................................................... 11
3.6 Compliance with Laws ........................................................................................ 11
3.7 No Conflicting Enactments .................................................................................. 11
3.8 Changes in the Law .............................................................................................. 11
3.9 Initiatives and Referenda ..................................................................................... 12
3.10 Regulation by Other Public Agencies .................................................................. 12
3.11 No Reservation of Sanitary Sewer or Potable Water Capacity ............................ 12
ARTICLE 4 FEES ....................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Impact Fees .......................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Processing Fees .................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Other Agency Fees ............................................................................................... 13
4.4 Taxes and Assessments ........................................................................................ 13
4.5 Connection Fees ................................................................................................... 13
ARTICLE 5 PUBLIC BENEFITS ............................................................................................... 14
5.1 Public Benefits Obligations ................................................................................. 14
5.2 Transient Occupancy Tax Requirement............................................................... 16
5.3 Upscale Hotel ....................................................................................................... 17
5.4 City of Cupertino Business License ..................................................................... 17
CC 03-03-20
201 of 873
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-ii-
5.5 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation .................................................................... 17
5.6 Waiver of Certain Rights in Connection With Public Benefit Covenants ........... 17
5.7 Ongoing Obligations ............................................................................................ 18
ARTICLE 6 ANNUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................... 19
6.1 Annual Review..................................................................................................... 19
ARTICLE 7 COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 20
7.1 Subsequent Approvals ......................................................................................... 20
7.2 Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals ......................................................... 20
7.3 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals ............................................ 21
7.4 Other Agency Subsequent Approvals; Authority of City .................................... 21
ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS ................... 22
8.1 Amendment by Written Consent ......................................................................... 22
8.2 Project Approval Amendments ............................................................................ 22
8.3 Amendment of this Agreement ............................................................................ 23
8.4 Amendments to Development Agreement Statute ............................................... 23
ARTICLE 9 INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF
LEGAL CHALLENGE ....................................................................................... 24
9.1 Insurance Requirements ....................................................................................... 24
9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless ............................................................................. 24
9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge ....................... 24
ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE ..................................................... 25
10.1 Assignment .......................................................................................................... 25
10.2 Release of Transferring Developer ...................................................................... 26
10.3 Assignment to Financial Institutions or Mortgagee ............................................. 26
10.4 Successive Assignment ........................................................................................ 27
ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION ............................................................................ 27
11.1 Mortgagee Protection ........................................................................................... 27
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated .................................................................................... 27
11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee ........................................................................... 28
11.4 No Supersedure .................................................................................................... 28
CC 03-03-20
202 of 873
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iii-
11.5 Mortgagee Requested Amendments .................................................................... 28
ARTICLE 12 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ........................................................ 28
12.1 Breach and Default .............................................................................................. 28
12.2 Withholding of Permits ........................................................................................ 29
12.3 Termination .......................................................................................................... 29
12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition ............................................. 29
12.5 Legal Actions ....................................................................................................... 29
12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative ................................................................. 30
12.7 No Damages ......................................................................................................... 30
12.8 Resolution of Disputes ......................................................................................... 30
12.9 Surviving Provisions ............................................................................................ 30
ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 31
13.1 Condemnation ...................................................................................................... 31
13.2 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land ................... 31
13.3 Notice ................................................................................................................... 31
13.4 Permitted Delays .................................................................................................. 32
13.5 Counterparts ......................................................................................................... 33
13.6 Waivers ................................................................................................................ 33
13.7 Construction of Agreement .................................................................................. 33
13.8 Headings .............................................................................................................. 33
13.9 Severability .......................................................................................................... 33
13.10 Time is of the Essence ......................................................................................... 33
13.11 Extension of Time Limits .................................................................................... 33
13.12 Other Necessary Acts ........................................................................................... 34
13.13 Signatures ............................................................................................................. 34
13.14 Entire Agreement ................................................................................................. 34
13.15 Estoppel Certificate .............................................................................................. 34
13.16 City Approvals and Actions ................................................................................. 34
13.17 Negation of Partnership ....................................................................................... 35
13.18 No Third-Party Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 35
CC 03-03-20
203 of 873
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iv-
13.19 Governing State Law ........................................................................................... 35
13.20 Exhibits ................................................................................................................ 35
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Property Legal Description
Exhibit B: Property Boundary and Depiction of the Project
Exhibit C: Description of the Project
Exhibit D: Existing Impact Fees
Exhibit E: Accepted Conditions of Title
Exhibit F: Annual Review Form
Exhibit G: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
CC 03-03-20
204 of 873
1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of ______________________
(“Effective Date”), is entered into pursuant to the Development Agreement Law, by and
between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and
NORTHWEST PROPERTIES LP, a California limited partnership (“Developer”). Developer
and City are referred to individually in this Agreement as a “Party” and collectively as the
“Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
This Agreement is entered based on the following facts, understandings and intentions of
the Parties. The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement; capitalized terms
used herein and not otherwise defined are defined in Article 1 of this Agreement.
A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation
in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the
Legislature of the State of California enacted sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code
(“Development Agreement Statute”) which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or
equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement
establishing certain development rights in the property.
B. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council of the
City of Cupertino enacted Municipal Code sections 19.144.010 et seq. (“Development
Agreement Regulations”), which authorize the execution of development agreements and set
forth the required contents and form of those agreements. The provisions of the Development
Agreement Statute and the City’s Development Agreement Regulations are collectively referred
to herein as the “Development Agreement Law.”
C. Developer is the owner of that certain real property consisting of approximately
1.29 acres (approximately 56,000 square feet) in size located at 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard,
Cupertino, CA 5014; Assessor’s Parcel No. 326-10-061 (“Property”) more particularly
described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, both attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The Property is currently developed with an 8,323 square foot commercial building operating as
a Goodyear Auto Service Center. This Agreement applies only to the Property and does not
affect or burden any other real property owned by Developer and/or its Affiliated Parties
D. Developer submitted applications to the City for a General Plan text amendment
(GPAAUTH-2018-01;) (“General Plan Amendment”), a Development Permit (DP-2018-01)
(“Development Permit”), an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2018-02) (the
“Architectural and Site Approval Permit”), a Use Permit (U-2018-02) (“Use Permit”), and a
Development Agreement (DA- 2018-01). These applications are in furtherance of the request by
Developer to remove the existing structures and facilities and develop on the Project Site a new
full-service boutique hotel comprising six stories above ground plus four levels of underground
parking, containing 156 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant, a rooftop bar, and associated
CC 03-03-20
205 of 873
2
amenities, facilities and infrastructure (the "Project"). The Project is described in more detail in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
E. The Project is the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2018-03)
(“MND”) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public
Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.). The MND is tiered from the General Plan EIR in
accordance with sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA section 21094.
F. After a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission on _____________
recommended to the City Council adoption of the MND, and approval of the General Plan
Amendment, Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval Permit, Use Permit, Tree
Removal Permit, Exception Permit, and this Development Agreement.
G. Prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, the City has taken the
following actions to review and plan development and use of the Project (collectively, the
“Existing Approvals”):
1. Adoption of the MND by Resolution No. _____________ adopted by the
City Council on ___________.
2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment by Resolution No. _________
adopted by the City Council on __________.
3. Approval of the Development Permit by Resolution No. ________
adopted by the City Council on ___________;
4. Approval of the Architectural and Site Approval Permit by Resolution No.
__________ adopted by the City Council on __________; and
5. Approval of the Use Permit by Resolution No. ________ adopted by the
City Council on __________.
H. It is the intent of City and Developer to establish certain conditions and
requirements related to review, approval, development and operation of the Project, which are or
will be the subject of this Agreement and possibly subsequent development applications and land
use entitlements if found to be desired or required.
I. City specifically finds, as required by Municipal Code section 19.144.110 and as
reflected in the Enacting Ordinance, that approving this Agreement for the Project will promote
orderly growth and quality development in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the
General Plan; is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
district in which the Property is located; will promote the public convenience, general welfare,
and good land use practice; will promote development which is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare; will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the
preservation of property value; and will promote and encourage development of the Project by
providing a greater degree of requisite certainty. City also finds that the Project will provide
substantial public benefits as described in this Agreement.
CC 03-03-20
206 of 873
3
J. City and Developer have reached mutual agreement and desire to voluntarily
enter into this Agreement to facilitate development and operation of the Project subject to the
conditions and requirements set forth herein.
K. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Agreement and has
conducted public hearings thereon under Government Code section 65867 and Municipal Code
section 19.144.090. City has reviewed and evaluated this Agreement in accordance with the
Development Agreement Law and found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes
are consistent with the Development Agreement Law and the goals, policies, standards, and land
use designations specified in the General Plan.
L. Following a duly noticed public hearing, on ______________ the City Council
introduced Ordinance No. _________ approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution,
and adopted that Ordinance on ____________ (“Enacting Ordinance”).
A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
herein and other valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Definitions.
“Administrative Agreement Amendment” is defined in Section 8.3.3.
“Administrative Project Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.1.
“Accepted Conditions of Title” is defined in Section 5.8 and shall be listed in Exhibit E.
“Affiliated Party” is defined in Section 10.1.2.
“Agreement” or “Development Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement
between City and Developer, including all Exhibits hereto.
“Annual Review Form” is defined in Section 6.1.2.
“Applicable City Regulations” is defined in Section 3.4.
“Applicable Law” means the Applicable City Regulations and all State and Federal laws
and regulations applicable to the Property and the Project as such State and Federal laws and
regulations may be enacted, adopted and amended from time to time, as more particularly
described in Section 3.8 (Changes in the Law).
“Architectural and Site Approval Permit” is defined in Recital D.
“Assignee” is defined in Section 10.1.1.
CC 03-03-20
207 of 873
4
“Assignment” is defined in Section 10.1.3.
“Building Permit” means a building permit issued by the City for the vertical
construction of any building (or buildings) within the Project, and shall not include any
demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit issued for a foundation or subterranean
parking garage.
“Business License Requirement” is defined in Section 5.4.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code sections 21000, et seq., as amended from time to time.
“CEQA Guidelines” means the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, sections 15000, et seq.), as amended from time to time.
“Certificate” is defined in Section 6.1.4.
“Changes in the Law” is defined in Section 3.8.
“City” means the City of Cupertino.
“City Council” means to the City Council of the City of Cupertino.
“City Manager” means the City’s City Manager or his or her designee.
“City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers,
employees, contractors, and representatives.
“Claims” means liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties, and
expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
“Community Amenity Payment” is defined in Section 5.1.1.
“Connection Fees” means those fees charged by City on a citywide basis or by a utility
provider to utility users as a cost for connecting water, sanitary sewer, and other applicable
utilities, except for any such fee or portion thereof that constitutes an Impact Fee.
“Construction Tax” is defined in Section 4.4.
“Consumer Price Index” shall mean the cumulative Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), as defined in Cupertino’s CMC Section 5.04.460 (and as reflected in
the most recent report of consumer prices for the San Francisco/Bay Area Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) or if
such index is no longer available by a comparable index as reasonably selected by City.
“Default” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Developer” means Northwest Properties LP, a California limited partnership and its
permitted successors, assigns, and Affiliated Parties (as defined in Section 10.1.2).
CC 03-03-20
208 of 873
5
“Development Agreement” or “Agreement” means this Development Agreement
between City and Developer, including all Exhibits hereto.
“Development Agreement Law” is defined in Recital B.
“Development Agreement Regulations” is defined in Recital B.
“Development Agreement Statute” is defined in Recital A.
“Development Permit” is defined in Recital D.
“Development Project” means a development project as defined by section 65928 of the
California Government Code. Notwithstanding section 65928 of the California Government
Code, Development Project shall also include all ministerial approvals required to carry out,
construct, reconstruct, and occupy such a development project.
“Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective as determined
under Section 2.1.
“Enacting Ordinance” refers to the Ordinance identified in Recital L.
“Exactions” means exactions that may be imposed by the City as a condition of
developing the Project, including requirements for acquisition, dedication, or reservation of land;
and obligations to construct on-site or off-site public and private infrastructure improvements
such as roadways, utilities, or other improvements necessary to support the Project, whether such
exactions constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with
environmental review of the Project, or impositions made under Applicable City Regulations.
For purposes of this Agreement, Exactions do not include Impact Fees.
“Existing Approvals” means and includes those permits and approvals for the Project
granted by City to Developer as of the Effective Date as set forth in Recital G.
“Existing Impact Fees” is defined in Section 4.1.
“General Plan” means City’s Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040, as
amended through the Effective Date.
“General Plan Amendment” is defined in Recital D.
“General Plan EIR” means the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
and Associated Rezoning Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the City
Council in December 2014 and the addendum to that EIR that was approved by the City Council
in October 2015.
“Impact Fees” means the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a
Development Project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the
impacts of the Development Project or development of the public facilities related to the
Development Project, including, any “fee” as that term is defined by Government Code section
CC 03-03-20
209 of 873
6
66000(b). For purposes of this Agreement, a fee that meets both the definitions of an Impact Fee
and an Exaction will be considered to be an Impact Fee. Impact Fees do not include Other
Agency Fees.
“Laws” means the Constitution and laws of the State, the Constitution of the United
States, and any codes, statutes, regulations, and executive mandates thereunder, and any court
decision, State or federal, thereunder.
“Litigation Challenge” is defined in Section 9.3.
“Major Agreement Amendment” is defined in Section 8.3.2.
“Major Project Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.2.
“Material Condemnation” is defined in Section 13.1.
“Meeting Room Benefit” is defined in Section 5.1.3.
“Minimum Hotel Standard” is defined in Section 5.3.
“MND” or Mitigated Negative Declaration is defined in Recital E.
“Mortgage” is defined in Section 11.1 and means any mortgage, deed of trust, security
agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or
any of Developer’s rights under this Agreement.
“Mortgagee” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any successor, assignee, or
transferee of any such Mortgage holder.
“Municipal Code” means and refers to the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, as
amended from time to time.
“New City Laws” means and includes any ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, official
policies, standards, specifications, guidelines, or other regulations, which are promulgated or
adopted by the City (including but not limited to any City agency, body, department, officer, or
employee) or its electorate (through their power of initiative or otherwise) after the Effective
Date.
“Notice of Breach” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Other Agency Fees” is defined in Section 4.3.
“Other Agency Subsequent Approvals” means approvals, entitlements, and permits
required for development or use of the Project to be obtained from entities other than the City.
“Parties” shall mean City and Developer.
“Permitted Delay” is defined in Section 13.4.
CC 03-03-20
210 of 873
7
“Planning Commission” means the City of Cupertino Planning Commission.
“Prevailing Wage Laws” is defined in Section 9.2.
“Processing Fees” means all fees for processing Development Project applications,
including any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and
inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits,
General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the
Project, which are in effect at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for,
and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing.
“Project Approvals” means the Existing Approvals and all Subsequent Approvals.
“Project” is defined in Recital D.
“Property” is defined in Recital C.
“Public Benefit Covenants” is defined in Section 5.7.
“Rooftop Amenity” is defined in Section 5.1.8.
“Shuttle Service” is defined in Section 5.1.2.
“STR” or Smith Travel Research is defined in Section 5.3.
“Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 7.1.
“Surviving Provisions” is defined in Section 12.9.
“Term” is defined in Section 2.2.
“Termination” is defined in Section 12.3.
“TOT” or Transient Occupancy Tax is defined in Section 5.2.
“TOT In-lieu Payment” is defined in Section 5.2.
“TOT Law” is defined in Section 5.2.
“TOT Requirement” is defined in Section 5.2.
“Tree Removal Permit” is defined in Recital D.
“Use Permit” is defined in Recital D.
CC 03-03-20
211 of 873
8
ARTICLE 2
EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
2.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the later of (a) the
date that is thirty (30) days after the date the Enacting Ordinance is adopted, or (b) the date this
Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. The Effective Date is inserted at the beginning of
this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement
Statute requires that this Agreement be recorded with the County Recorder no later than ten (10)
days after the City enters into this Agreement, and that the burdens of this Agreement shall be
binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all permitted successors in
interest to the Parties to this Agreement. The City Clerk shall cause such recordation.
2.2 Term of Agreement. The “Term” of this Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and shall expire on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless earlier
terminated or extended by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto in accordance with the
requirements of Section 8.1, below.
2.3 City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Developer
that, as of the Effective Date:
2.3.1 City is a municipal corporation and has all necessary powers under the
laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City
under this Agreement.
2.3.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the
obligations of the City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action
and all necessary City approvals have been obtained.
2.3.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in
accordance with its terms.
During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or
condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.3 not
to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Developer.
2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties. Developer represents and warrants to
City that, as of the Effective Date:
2.4.1 Developer is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California, and is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the
State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the
undertakings and obligations of Developer under this Agreement.
2.4.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the
obligations of Developer hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary partnership
action and all necessary partner approvals have been obtained.
CC 03-03-20
212 of 873
9
2.4.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of Developer and is enforceable in
accordance with its terms.
2.4.4 Developer has not (a) made a general assignment for the benefit of
creditors; (b) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary
petition by Developer’s creditors; (c) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of
all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; (d) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure
of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; or (e) admitted in writing its inability to pay its
debts as they come due.
2.4.5 Developer and/or its Affiliated Parties are in the business of developing
and owning real estate. Developer and its Affiliated Parties have sufficient financial resources to
undertake development of the Project and thereafter operate or cause the hotel to be operated as
described in Section 5.3 and as otherwise intended by this Agreement. The entity that operates
the hotel, whether Developer, one of its Affiliated Parties, or any third-party entity that
Developer arranges for such purpose, shall satisfy the qualifications for an Assignee as described
in Section 10.1.1 to the extent applicable.
During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall, upon learning of any fact or
condition that/ would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.4 not to be
true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City.
ARTICLE 3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
3.1 Vested Rights. The Property is hereby made subject to the provisions of this
Agreement. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Property and the Project in
conformance with the Existing Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals, Applicable Law and this
Agreement, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to this Agreement, which shall
control the permitted uses, density, and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height
and size of buildings on the Property.
3.2 Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this
Agreement, the life of the Project Approvals shall automatically be extended to and until the later
of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement; or (2) the end of the term or life of
any such Project Approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the vested elements secured by
Developer under this Agreement shall have a life no greater than the Term of this Agreement.
3.3 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses for the Property and the Project are those set
forth in the Project Approvals, and include the following:
3.3.1 Up to 156 hotel rooms in one building of six above-grade stories with a
fitness facility and amenities customary for a hotel meeting the Minimum Hotel Standard;
3.3.2 four levels of below-grade parking;
3.3.3 a restaurant/bar with an outdoor patio, to be open to the general public;
CC 03-03-20
213 of 873
10
3.3.4 a rooftop lounge and/or bar; and
3.3.5 rooms suitable for meetings, conferences, banquets and similar uses.
The details for each component are subject to the Project and Agreement amendment processes
as set forth in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 herein. In the event of a conflict between the Existing
Approvals and the terms of this Section 3.3, the Existing Approvals shall govern.
3.4 Applicable City Regulations. The laws, rules, regulations, official policies,
standards and specifications of City applicable to the development, use and operation of the
Property and the Project shall be (collectively, “Applicable City Regulations”):
3.4.1 Those rules, regulations, official policies, standards, and specifications of
the City set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement;
3.4.2 With respect to matters not addressed by and not otherwise inconsistent
with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, those laws, rules, regulations, official policies,
standards and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted
uses, building locations, timing and manner of construction, densities, intensities of uses,
maximum heights and sizes, design, set-backs, lot coverage and open space, parking,
landscaping, requirements for on- and off-site infrastructure and public improvements and
Exactions, in each case only to the extent in full force and effect on the Effective Date;
3.4.3 Except as may be addressed in the Project Approvals, New City Laws that
relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports,
recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided that
such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types
of Development Projects and properties, and such procedures are not inconsistent with
procedures set forth in this Agreement;
3.4.4 New City Laws that revise City’s uniform construction codes, including
City’s building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code, grading code
and other uniform construction codes, as of the date of permit issuance, provided that such New
City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of
Development Projects and properties;
3.4.5 New City Laws that are necessary to protect the physical health and safety
of the public, provided that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to
all substantially similar types of Development Projects and properties;
3.4.6 New City Laws that do not conflict with this Agreement or the Project
Approvals, provided that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all
substantially similar types of Development Projects and properties; and
3.4.7 New City Laws that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to
the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such New City Laws are accepted in
writing by Developer in its sole discretion.
CC 03-03-20
214 of 873
11
3.5 Timing of Development. Developer shall have no obligation to develop the
Project or any component of the Project. Without any limitation of the foregoing, it is the desire
of the Parties hereto to avoid the result in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984)
37 Cal.3d 465, in which the California Supreme Court held that the failure of the parties therein
to consider, and expressly provide for, the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted
initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement.
Therefore, notwithstanding the adoption of any initiative after the Effective Date by City’s
electorate to the contrary, the Parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise provided for in this
Agreement, Developer shall have the vested right during the Term and any extensions thereof to
develop the Project at such time as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its sole and
subjective business judgment.
3.6 Compliance with Laws. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply
with the requirements of, and obtain all permits and approvals required by local, State and
Federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Property or Project. Furthermore, Developer shall
carry out the Project work in conformity with all Applicable Law, including applicable state
labor laws and standards; Applicable City Regulations; and all applicable disabled and
handicapped access requirements, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
sections 12101 et seq., Government Code sections 4450 et seq., Government Code
sections 11135 et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code sections 51 et seq.
3.7 No Conflicting Enactments. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement,
City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative,
referendum or other means, including development moratorium or additional Project conditions
on Subsequent Approvals) any New City Law that is in conflict with this Agreement or the
Existing Approvals or, once approved, the Subsequent Approvals. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, except as otherwise provided herein, City shall not (a) apply to the
Property any change in land use designation or permitted use, density or intensity of
development of the Property; (b) apply to the Property any change in off-site infrastructure or
utility requirements or limit or control the availability of or ability to obtain public utilities,
services, or facilities (provided, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to exempt the Project
or the Property from any water use rationing requirements that may be imposed from time to
time in the future and nothing herein shall be deemed a commitment to reserve potable water or
sanitary sewer capacity which the Parties acknowledge City does not control); (c) modify or
control building setbacks, square footages or heights; the location of buildings and structures;
parking requirements; or grading in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the
terms included in the Existing Approvals or this Agreement; or (d) limit or control the rate,
timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any part of
the Project.
3.8 Changes in the Law. As provided in section 65869.5 of the Development
Agreement Law, this Agreement shall not preclude the applicability to the Project of changes in
laws, regulations, plans, or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and
required by changes in State or Federal laws or by changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies
of special districts or other governmental entities, other than the City, created or operating
pursuant to the laws of the State of California (“Changes in the Law”). If Changes in the Law
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall
CC 03-03-20
215 of 873
12
meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement
shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply
with Changes in the Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Developer from contesting
by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the
Project of any such Changes in the Law.
3.9 Initiatives and Referenda. If any New City Law is enacted or imposed by
initiative or referendum, or by the City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any
proposed initiative or referendum, which New City Law would conflict with this Agreement or
reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement and the Project Approvals, such New
City Law shall not apply to the Project. No moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to
the rate, timing, phasing, density, height or sequencing of development) affecting subdivision
maps, building permits or other entitlements to use property that are approved or to be approved,
issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall apply to the Project. City, except
to submit to vote of the electorate initiatives and referendums required by Applicable Law to be
placed on a ballot, shall not adopt or enact any New City Law, or take any other action which
would violate the express provisions of this Agreement or the Project Approvals. Developer
reserves the right to challenge in court any New City Law that would conflict with this
Agreement or reduce the vested development rights provided by this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that City’s approval of this Agreement
is a legislative action subject to referendum. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that
City does not have authority or jurisdiction over any other public agency’s ability to grant
governmental approvals or permits or to impose a moratorium or other limitation that may affect
the Project.
3.10 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. Developer acknowledges that other public
agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development
of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Agreement does not limit the
authority of such other public agencies. Developer will, at the time required in accordance with
Developer’s project and construction schedule, apply for all such other permits and approvals as
may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the
development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. Developer acknowledges that City
does not control the amount of any fees imposed by such other agencies. If such fees are
imposed upon Developer and are in excess of those allowed by Applicable Law and Developer
wishes to object to such fees, Developer may pay such fees under protest. City agrees not to
delay issuance of permits or other Subsequent Approvals and entitlements under these
circumstances, provided Developer provides City with proof of payment of such fees.
3.11 No Reservation of Sanitary Sewer or Potable Water Capacity. City has found the
Project to be consistent with the General Plan that anticipates that there will be sufficient potable
water and sanitary sewer capacity to serve future development contemplated by the General Plan,
including the Project, through the Term. However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to
provide any reservation of potable water or sanitary sewer capacity.
CC 03-03-20
216 of 873
13
ARTICLE 4
FEES
4.1 Impact Fees. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, during the Term and
any extension thereof City shall have the right to impose and Developer shall pay only such
Impact Fees as City has adopted as of the Effective Date, including those set forth in the Project
Approvals (“Existing Impact Fees”). For convenience of reference, the Existing Impact Fees
are identified in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein. Any Existing Impact Fees
that are in existence as of the Effective Date but are inadvertently omitted from Exhibit D may
still be charged. In the event of such inadvertent omission, the Parties shall revise Exhibit D to
correct such error. Payment of the Existing Impact Fees shall be at the rates in effect when such
fees are due. Notwithstanding the above and subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or
pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Impact Fees, if City elects in its sole
discretion to approve any extension to the Term, in addition to the Existing Impact Fees it may
impose any new or increased Impact Fees City may have duly adopted as of the date of such
approval.
4.2 Processing Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge
in law or equity to any new or increased Processing Fee, City may charge and Developer agrees
to pay all Processing Fees for processing Development Project applications, including but not
limited to any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and
inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits,
General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the
Project, at the rates which are in effect on a City-wide basis at the time those permits, approvals,
entitlements, reviews or inspections are applied for, requested, or required. Without limiting the
above, by entering into this Agreement Developer accepts and shall not protest or challenge
imposition of the types and amounts of Processing Fees in effect as of the Effective Date.
4.3 Other Agency Fees. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from
collecting fees from Developer that are lawfully imposed on the Project by another agency
having jurisdiction over the Project, which the City is required to collect on behalf of such other
agencies (“Other Agency Fees”).
4.4 Taxes and Assessments. City may impose and Developer agrees to pay any and
all existing, new, modified, or increased taxes and assessments imposed in accordance with the
laws in effect as of the date due, at the rate in effect at the time of payment, including without
limitation, the construction taxes imposed by Chapter 3.32 of the Municipal Code
(“Construction Tax”).
4.5 Connection Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a
challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Connection Fee, City may charge, and
Developer shall pay any Connection Fee that is lawfully adopted.
CC 03-03-20
217 of 873
14
ARTICLE 5
PUBLIC BENEFITS
5.1 Public Benefits Obligations. In consideration of the rights and benefits conferred
by City to Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall perform the public benefit
obligations and pay to City the contributions set forth in this Article 5 all within the times set
forth herein.
5.1.1 Community Amenity Funding. Developer agrees to pay City Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) in installments as described below, for City’s use in
the City Council’s discretion subject to the following suggested guidelines (“Community
Amenity Payment”), which payment shall be in addition to any Impact Fees otherwise due.
Once paid, each installment of the Community Amenity Payment shall be nonrefundable, except
as provided in Section 5.1.1.2 below.
5.1.1.1 The Community Amenity Payment shall be made in
installments as follows:
(1) Within ninety (90) Effective Date, Developer shall pay City
a first installment of the Community Amenity Payment in the amount of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
(2) On or before December 1st of each year, beginning on the
first December 1st after the Effective Date, until the Community Amenity
Payment is paid in full, as part of each annual review and together with
submission of the Annual Review Form, Developer shall pay City an
installment of the Community Amenity Payment in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
(3) At the time of issuance of the first Building Permit for the
Project, Developer shall pay twenty-five percent (25%) of the remainder
of the Community Amenity Payment.
(4) At the time of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy
for the Project, Developer shall pay the remainder of the Community
Amenity Payment.
(5) In the event of a Litigation Challenge (described below in
Section 9.3), all unpaid Community Amenity Payment installments shall
be postponed until final resolution of the Litigation Challenge.
5.1.1.2 Except as specified herein, the Community Benefit Payment
installments Developer pays to City shall be nonrefundable even if the Project is not built or
occupied, and Developer acknowledges that such installments and the timing of their payment
constitute partial consideration for City entering into this Agreement and are paid at Developer’s
risk. Notwithstanding the above, if this Agreement is terminated or the Project is not constructed
due to City’s bad faith action or failure to act regarding the Project Approvals leading to the
City’s uncured Default, which is not resolved after completion of the dispute resolution process
CC 03-03-20
218 of 873
15
in Section 12.8, then upon final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction in Developer’s
favor such payments shall be refundable to Developer.
5.1.1.3 Funds may be used in any part of the City to benefit residents,
businesses, and visitors, including on projects that will enhance and enrich the experience of the
most proximate City residents, retail and restaurant customers, and hotel guests.
5.1.1.4 Without limiting City’s discretion in its use of the Community
Amenity Payment, the following types of uses or activities have been identified as candidates:
(1) Local transportation facilities, such as bicycle lanes,
projects identified in the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan, or
projects identified in the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(without replacing fair-share impact fees also owed by Developer);
(2) Start-up costs for the Transportation Management
Association (“TMA”);
(3) Permanent local public art projects or temporary exhibits
(in addition to any public art installation or payment otherwise owed); and
(4) Landscaping beautification improvements in public parks,
parkways or roadway medians.
5.1.2 Shuttle Service. To reduce automobile use in Cupertino, with the
attendant effects on traffic and air quality, Developer shall provide access to a shuttle service
available for the following purposes (the “Shuttle Service”):
5.1.2.1 for hotel guests traveling between the hotel and San Jose and
San Francisco International Airports and major employment centers (“Destinations”) and for
residents of the City between the hotel and Destinations at reduced rates;
5.1.2.2
5.1.2.3 subject to availability, for residents of City, employees of
businesses located in the City, and the general public (“Non-Hotel Shuttle Passengers”) to
travel between the Project and Destinations at 50% of Developer’s cost for the shuttle service.
Developer shall establish a process for informing Non-Hotel Shuttle Passengers of shuttle
schedules and the opportunity to reserve space in the shuttles, including, but not limited to,
information on the Project’s website(s), on-line reservations, and by posting signs with lettering
in 48-point type (or larger) in prominent locations in the common areas of the Project.
5.1.3 Meeting Rooms. Developer shall allow City and Cupertino Public
Schools to use up to 100% of the Project’s meeting rooms on a complimentary basis for official
City business purposes and for educational purposes (“Meeting Room Benefit”). The
City/School shall request reservations for the Meeting Room Benefit at least fifteen (15) days in
advance of any proposed use. The Meeting Room Benefit shall be limited to twelve (12) days
per year. Each day of a multiple-day event shall be considered a separate day for purposes of
CC 03-03-20
219 of 873
16
calculating the 12-day per year limit. Unused days from one calendar year shall not be carried
over to the following year. Such use shall be subject to availability, but an existing City/School
reservation cannot be canceled in favor of a paying user within fifteen (15) days before the
City/School event. Developer shall provide complimentary utilities and audio-visual services for
the City/School event. Developer shall make catering services for such uses available at a
twenty-five percent (25%) discount from regular charges (provided, however, that to the extent
the discount results in a charge less than the actual costs of the catering services, user shall be
required to pay the actual costs), but the user will not be required to use the Project’s catering
services. The City/School user may incorporate the Project’s logo and photos of the Project
interior and exterior in promotional materials for the event. The Project shall provide marquees
or other signs in the common areas of the Project identifying the event and directing persons to
the location of the event.
5.1.4 Rooftop Amenity. The Project shall include an enclosed publicly
accessible rooftop amenity (“Rooftop Amenity”), including but not limited to outdoor deck
seating, bar, or restaurant, not to exceed the height of any rooftop mechanical equipment
enclosure, for as long as the Project, all or in part, is in operation as a hotel. The Rooftop
Amenity will likely be used for weddings, community events, birthday parties, graduations,
baptisms, company events, or other types of events (“Events”). The Rooftop Amenity will be
closed to the general public during preparation for and during Events. At all other times, seven
days per week except holidays, the Rooftop Amenity shall be open to the public for lunch
between 11:30 am or other time based on demand and close at an appropriate time in the
afternoon based on demand. The Rooftop Amenity shall be open to the public again at 5:30 pm
and close at 10:00 pm or other time based on demand. Developer shall place advertisements in
local media and post signs in the lobby of the Project notifying the public of the availability of
the Rooftop Amenity and the hours of operation.
5.2 Transient Occupancy Tax Requirement. In consideration of the rights and
benefits conferred by City to Developer under this Agreement, and in recognition that the
transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) to be generated by the hotel is a significant incentive for City
to enter into this Agreement, any hotel or similar business operating on the Property shall comply
with the provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7280, Municipal Code
section 3.12 and any other applicable law (collectively, “TOT Law”), as they may change from
time to time, so as to assure that the TOT may be collected from the rentor of a room at the hotel
(“TOT Requirement”). Without limiting the foregoing, to the extent permitted by law
Developer shall not allow any person to occupy a particular room for longer than thirty
consecutive calendar days, counting portions of days as full days, and shall require any person
desiring to stay longer to check out of the hotel and check back in to the hotel more than 24
hours after checking out, or otherwise as may be required by the TOT Law, so as to preserve the
ability to collect the TOT from such persons. Developer shall collect the TOT from all rentors
unless such rentor has been exempted by City and has documented such exemption as may be
required by the TOT Law. Developer shall charge the TOT at the rate adopted by City, as it may
change from time to time, and remit the TOT to City as required by City regulations. If despite
the prohibition on rentals of more than thirty (30) any person’s stay, for any reason, extends
beyond the time allowed under the TOT Law for collection of TOT, so that Developer may no
longer collect TOT for the additional days, Developer shall pay City an amount equivalent to the
CC 03-03-20
220 of 873
17
TOT that otherwise might have been collected (the “TOT In-lieu Payment”), remitted along
with TOT collected.
5.3 Upscale Hotel. Developer has represented to City that the Project will provide a
facility described as an “upper upscale boutique hotel”, which City interprets in part to mean that
the hotel will charge higher rates and will provide better amenities than most hotels, which in
turn means that the hotel will generate more TOT and add to Cupertino’s prestige. City has
relied on this characterization and benefits as an incentive to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, any hotel or similar business operating on the Property shall meet or exceed the
standards to qualify as “Upper Upscale” as promulgated by Smith Travel Research (“STR”), or
if the STR rating system no longer is available then another similar source of hotel rating
mutually acceptable to the Parties (the “Minimum Hotel Standard”).
5.4 City of Cupertino Business License. Developer, at its expense, shall obtain and
maintain a City of Cupertino business license at all times and shall include a provision in all
general contractor agreements for the Project requiring each such general contractor to obtain
and maintain a City of Cupertino business license during performance of construction work
(“Business License Requirement”).
5.5 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation. Developer shall use good faith, diligent
efforts to the extent allowed by law to require all persons and entities providing bulk lumber,
concrete, structural steel, and pre-fabricated building components, such as roof trusses, to be
used in connection with the construction and development of, or incorporated into, the Project, to
(a) obtain a use tax direct payment permit; (b) elect to obtain a subcontractor permit for the job
site of a contract valued at Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more; or (c) otherwise designate
the Property as the place of use of material incorporated in the Project to have the local portion
of the sales and use tax distributed directly to City instead of through the county-wide pool.
Developer shall instruct its general contractor(s) for the Project to, and shall cause such general
contractor(s) to instruct its/their subcontractors to, cooperate with City to ensure that the local
sales/use tax derived from construction of the Project is allocated to City to the fullest extent
possible. To assist City in its efforts to ensure that such local sales/use tax is so allocated to City,
Developer shall on an annual basis, or more frequently upon City’s request, provide City with
such information as shall be reasonably requested by City regarding subcontractors working on
the Project with contracts in excess of the amount set forth above, including a description of all
applicable work and materials and the dollar value of such subcontracts, and, if applicable,
evidence of their designation, such as approvals or applications for the direct payment permit, of
City as the place of use of such work and materials. City may use such information to contact
each subcontractor who may qualify for local allocation of use taxes to City.
5.6 Waiver of Certain Rights in Connection With Public Benefit Covenants. The
Parties acknowledge that some of the Public Benefit Covenants offered by Developer in this
Section 5 may exceed those necessary to address impacts of development of the Project, and that
absent this Agreement, such "non-nexus" Public Benefit Covenants may not legally be required
of Developer or imposed as conditions of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals.
Developer understands and acknowledges the foregoing, and further acknowledges that, but for
its willingness to enter into this Agreement to confirm its willingness and obligation to provide
the Public Benefit Covenants, the City would not have approved the Project. In addition,
CC 03-03-20
221 of 873
18
Developer acknowledges that the provisions in this Agreement for all Exactions and payment by
Developer of Impact Fees constitute a material inducement to the City in its decision to enter into
this Agreement. On the basis of the foregoing, Developer waives any right under Laws to object
to, challenge, or contest the requirements in this Agreement for the provision of the Public
Benefit Covenants, including applicable provisions of Government Code sections 66020-66025,
as the same may hereafter be amended from time to time, and the provisions of Government
Code sections 65958 and 65959 as the same may hereafter be amended from time to time. In
addition, Developer waives such rights in connection with the imposition of conditions of
approval and other obligations as part of Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals under this
Agreement, to the extent that such conditions and obligations are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement and the Applicable City Regulations. The provisions of this
Section 5.7 shall survive the expiration of the Term or Termination of this Agreement as
Surviving Provisions and shall remain in effect until performance by the Parties of their
obligations under this Section 5 in full.
5.7 Ongoing Obligations. The public benefit obligations required in this Article 5
(“Public Benefit Covenants”) are ongoing obligations that shall survive and continue in effect
after the expiration of the Term of this Agreement and after Termination of this Agreement, shall
be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties, and the burdens and benefits of this
Agreement shall inure to all successors in interest to the Parties in accordance with Government
Code section 65868.5 and the following criteria.
5.7.1 No later than 10 days after the Effective Date, the Clerk of the City
Council shall record a copy of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of Santa
Clara.
5.7.2 This Agreement shall be subordinate only to the Accepted Conditions of
Title listed in Exhibit E. This Agreement shall not be subordinate to any Mortgage.
5.7.3 It is the intent of the Parties that each and all of the Public Benefit
Covenants in this Article 5 are for the mutual benefit of the owner of the Property and adjoining
City property and every portion of each thereof (the Property and adjoining City property
collectively, the “Parcels.”). Each and all of the covenants, obligations, conditions, and
restrictions set forth in this Article 5 touches and concerns and shall affect, relate to, and run with
the land of each of the Parcels and every portion of each thereof, and shall apply to and bind the
respective successor owners of each of the Parcels and every portion of each thereof, for the
benefit of each of the other Parcels and every portion of each thereof (except to the extent
otherwise stated herein). Each and all of the covenants, obligations, conditions, and restrictions
set forth in this Article 5 are imposed on each portion of and interest in each of the Parcels as
mutual equitable servitudes in favor of each and all other portions of and interests in the Parcels
and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, without
limitation, section 65868.5 of the Government Code and section 1468 of the Civil Code of the
State of California.
5.7.4 The Shuttle Service, Meeting Room Benefit, Rooftop Amenity, and
Minimum Hotel Standard shall survive, continue, and remain in effect so long as and whenever a
hotel or similar type of business operates on the Property.
CC 03-03-20
222 of 873
19
5.7.5 The City of Cupertino Business License requirement and Sales Tax Point
of Sale Designation shall survive, continue, and remain in effect so long as and whenever a hotel
or similar type of business operates on the Property.
ARTICLE 6
ANNUAL REVIEW
6.1 Annual Review.
6.1.1 Purpose. As required by California Government Code section 65865.1
and Municipal Code section 19.144.060(H), City and Developer shall review this Agreement and
all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to the development of the
Project every twelve (12) months to determine good faith compliance with this Agreement.
Specifically, City’s annual review shall be conducted for the purposes of determining
compliance by Developer with its obligations under this Agreement and document the status of
Project development. Annual review shall continue after the Term, so City may determine
compliance with the ongoing public benefit obligations described in Article 5.
6.1.2 Conduct of Annual Review. The annual review shall be conducted as
provided in this Section 6.1.2. By December 1st of each year, Developer shall provide
documentation of its good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement and the terms of the
Public Benefits Covenants during the previous calendar year, including a completed Annual
Review Form in the form provided in Exhibit F and such other information as may reasonably
be requested by the City Manager. If the City Manager finds good faith compliance by
Developer with the terms of this Agreement and the Public Benefit Covenants, Developer shall
be notified in writing and the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Manager is
not satisfied that Developer is performing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement or one or more of the Public Benefit Covenants, the City Manager shall prepare a
written report specifying why the Developer may not be in good faith compliance, refer the
matter to the City Council, and notify Developer in writing at least fifteen (15) business days in
advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the City Council. This notice shall
include the time and place of the City Council’s public hearing to evaluate good faith compliance
with this Agreement and the Public Benefit Covenants, a copy of the City Manager’s report and
recommendations, if any, and any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer
of the nature of the proceeding. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which
Developer must submit evidence that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement and the Public Benefit Covenants. Developer shall be given an opportunity to
be heard at the hearing. The findings of the City Council on whether Developer has complied in
good faith for the period under review shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record. If
the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has complied in
good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Public Benefit Covenants, the
review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial
evidence in the record, that Developer has not complied in good faith with one or more terms and
conditions of this Agreement or the Public Benefit Covenants, or there are significant questions
as to whether Developer has substantially complied in good faith, the City Council, at its option,
may continue the hearing and may notify Developer of the City’s intent to meet and confer with
Developer within thirty (30) days after such determination, prior to taking further action.
CC 03-03-20
223 of 873
20
Following such meeting, the City Council shall resume the hearing to further consider the matter
and make a determination regarding Developer’s good faith compliance. In the event the City
Council determines Developer is not in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, City may give the Developer a written Notice of Breach, in which case the
provisions of Section 12.1, below, shall apply.
6.1.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. Failure of City to conduct an annual
review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions
of this Agreement, nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason
of any such failure to conduct an annual review.
6.1.4 Certificate of Compliance. If, at the conclusion of the annual review
described in Section 6.1.2, the Developer is found to be in good faith compliance with this
Agreement and the Public Benefits Covenants, City shall, upon request by Developer, issue a
Certificate of Compliance (“Certificate”) to Developer stating that after the most recent annual
review and based upon the information actually known to an appropriate official of City
specified in such Certificate that: (a) this Agreement remains in effect (for the remainder of the
Term), and (b) the Developer is not in Default of this Agreement or the Public Benefits
Covenants. The Certificate shall be in a recordable form, shall contain information necessary to
communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, and shall state the
anticipated date of commencement of the next annual review. Developer may record the
Certificate at its sole cost and expense without cost or expense to City.
ARTICLE 7
COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and
permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of
the Project (“Subsequent Approvals”). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without
limitation, the following: amendments of the Existing Approvals, demolition and grading
permits, excavation permits, building permits, design review permits, sign permits, sewer and
water connection permits, encroachment permits, certificates of occupancy, lot line adjustments
or lot merger, site plans, development plans, land use plans, building plans and specifications,
and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. Except as otherwise expressly
provided herein, the City shall not impose requirements or conditions upon the development and
construction of the Project that are inconsistent with the Existing Approvals, including the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, and any Subsequent Approvals as may be obtained from time
to time.
7.2 Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. City, in approving the Existing
Approvals and vesting the Project through this Agreement, is limiting its future discretion with
respect to the Project and Subsequent Approvals to determining whether the application for a
Subsequent Approval is consistent with and meets the criteria set forth in the Applicable City
Regulations, Existing Approvals, and where applicable, other Project Approvals previously
granted. Subject to the foregoing, City reserves discretion to impose appropriate Exactions in
connection with issuance of Subsequent Approvals, as necessary to bring the Subsequent
Approval into compliance with Applicable Law and Existing Approvals. At such time as any
CC 03-03-20
224 of 873
21
Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by City, then such Subsequent
Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to
Project Approvals and shall be automatically vested and treated as a Project Approval.
7.3 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals.
7.3.1 Timely Submittals by Developer. Developer acknowledges that City
cannot begin processing applications for Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits
complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use diligent good faith efforts to
(a) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other
information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (b) cause Developer’s
planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such
documents, applications, plans, and other materials required under Applicable Law. It is the
express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all
Subsequent Approvals.
7.3.2 Timely Processing by City. Upon submission by Developer of all
appropriate applications and Processing Fees for any pending Subsequent Approval, City shall,
to the full extent allowed by Applicable Law, promptly and diligently, subject to City
ordinances, policies, and procedures regarding hiring and contracting, commence and complete
all steps necessary to act on Developer’s currently pending Subsequent Approval applications
including: (a) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior
approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance, additional staff and/or staff consultants for
concurrent, expedited planning and processing of each pending Subsequent Approval
application; (b) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (c) acting
on any such pending Subsequent Approval application. To the greatest extent permitted by the
Existing Approvals or Applicable Law, City Staff will process Subsequent Approvals
administratively. Developer’s obligation to pay for the processing of Subsequent Approvals,
including staff time, materials, and third-party consultants, shall be based on the City’s actual
out-of-pocket costs, plus a fifteen percent (15%) markup of consultant costs, per existing policy,
to cover City’s costs of managing such third-party consultants and administering their contracts.
7.3.3 CEQA. In connection with its consideration and approval of Existing
Approvals, the City prepared and adopted the MND, which evaluated the environmental effects
of the Existing Approvals for the Project and has adopted mitigation measures to reduce the
significant environmental effects therefrom. The Parties acknowledge that certain Subsequent
Approvals may legally require additional analysis under CEQA. Nothing contained in this
Agreement is intended to prevent or limit City from complying with CEQA. In acting on
Subsequent Approvals, City will rely on the MND to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA as
determined by City in the exercise of its independent judgment. If additional environmental
review is required for a Subsequent Approval, City shall limit such additional review to the
scope of analysis mandated by CEQA and shall not adopt new mitigation measures except as
legally required, all as determined by City as the lead agency under CEQA in the exercise of its
independent judgment.
7.4 Other Agency Subsequent Approvals; Authority of City. City shall cooperate
with Developer, to the extent appropriate and as permitted by Applicable Law, in Developer’s
CC 03-03-20
225 of 873
22
efforts to obtain, as may be required, Other Agency Subsequent Approvals. Notwithstanding the
issuance to Developer of Other Agency Subsequent Approvals, Developer agrees that City shall
have the right to review, modify, approve and/or reject any and all submissions subject to the
Other Agency Subsequent Approvals which, but for the authority of the other governmental or
quasi-governmental entities issuing the Other Agency Subsequent Approvals, would otherwise
require City approval. Developer agrees that City may review, modify, approve, and/or reject
any such materials or applications to ensure consistency with this Agreement and the Project
Approvals and Developer shall incorporate any and all changes required by City prior to
submitting such materials and applications to the other governmental or quasi-governmental
entities for review and/or approval.
ARTICLE 8
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
8.1 Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein
(including Section 6.1 relating to City’s annual review and Section 12.3 relating to termination in
the event of a breach), this Agreement may be terminated, modified, or amended only by mutual
written consent of the Parties or their successors in interest or assignees and in accordance with
the provisions of Government Code sections 65967, 65867.5 and 65868.
8.2 Project Approval Amendments. To the extent permitted by Applicable Law,
Project Approvals may, from time to time, be amended in the following manner:
8.2.1 Administrative Project Approval Amendments. Upon Developer’s written
request for an amendment or modification to the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals, the
City Manager shall determine: (i) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor
when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or
modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the City Manager or
his/her designee finds, in his or her sole discretion, that the proposed amendment or modification
is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and will result in no new
significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the MND, the amendment or modification
shall be determined to be an “Administrative Project Approval Amendment” and shall not
require an amendment to this Agreement. Upon the City Manager’s approval, any
Administrative Project Amendment shall be automatically incorporated into the applicable
Project Approvals and this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, and by way of example,
after City approval of the Existing Approvals, Developer requests for lot line adjustments, minor
changes in improvement plans, minor changes in land uses involving minimal acreage, minor
alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, minor changes in the amount
of parking and parking layout, changes in pathway alignments, substitutions of comparable
landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan,
variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the infrastructure
connections, facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor
adjustments to the Site Map or Property Description may be treated as Administrative Project
Amendments.
8.2.2 Major Project Amendments. Any amendment to the Project Approvals
which the City Manager determines is not an Administrative Project Approval Amendment as set
CC 03-03-20
226 of 873
23
forth above in Section 8.2.1 shall be deemed a “Major Project Amendment.” A Major Project
Amendment shall be processed in the same manner and require the same approvals as the
original Project Approval, including, where so required, giving of notice and a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with Applicable Law. The City
Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major
Project Amendment subject to this Section 8.2.2 or an Administrative Project Approval
Amendment subject to Section 8.2.1.
8.3 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to
time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the Parties or their successors in interest,
as follows:
8.3.1 Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this
Agreement which does not substantially affect (a) the Term; (b) permitted uses of the Property;
(c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or
requirements for Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals; (e) increases in the density or
intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f)
monetary payments by Developer; or (g) the provision of Public Benefit Covenants described in
Article 5, shall be deemed an “Administrative Agreement Amendment” and the City Manager
or his or her designee, except to the extent otherwise required by Applicable Law, may approve
the Administrative Agreement Amendment without notice and public hearing.
8.3.2 Major Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement
which is determined not to be an Administrative Agreement Amendment as set forth above in
Section 8.3.1 shall be deemed a “Major Agreement Amendment” and shall require giving of
notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance
with Applicable Law. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority in her or
her sole discretion to determine if an amendment is a Major Agreement Amendment subject to
this Section 8.3.2 or an Administrative Agreement Amendment subject to Section 8.3.1.
8.3.3 Requirement for Writing. No modification, amendment or other change to
this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set
forth in a writing which refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized
representatives of both Parties or their successors in interest. A copy of any change shall be
provided to the City Council within thirty (30) days of its execution.
8.4 Amendments to Development Agreement Statute. This Agreement has been
entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute as those
provisions existed as of the date of execution of this Agreement. No amendment or addition to
those provisions which would materially affect the interpretation or enforceability of this
Agreement shall be applicable to this Agreement, unless such amendment or addition is
specifically required by the California State Legislature or is mandated by a court of competent
jurisdiction. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this
Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend
this Agreement to permit such applicability.
CC 03-03-20
227 of 873
24
ARTICLE 9
INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF
LEGAL CHALLENGE
9.1 Insurance Requirements. Prior to commencement of construction activities
(including demolition) and through completion of all construction activities for the Project,
including but not limited to a final certificate of occupancy, Developer shall procure and
maintain, or cause its contractor(s) to procure and maintain, a commercial general liability policy
in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) combined single limit, including
contractual liability together with a comprehensive automobile liability policy in the amount of
Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), combined single limit. Such policy or policies shall be
written on an occurrence form. Developer’s insurance shall be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII or a rating otherwise approved by City in its
sole discretion. Developer shall furnish at City’s request appropriate certificate(s) of insurance
evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder, and City Parties shall be named as
additional insured parties in such policies. The certificate of insurance shall contain a statement
of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation or
termination of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of any such
material change, cancellation or termination (ten (10) days advance notice in the case of
cancellation for nonpayment of premiums) where the insurance carrier provides such notice to
Developer. Coverage provided hereunder by Developer shall be primary insurance and shall not
be contributing with any insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance maintained by City, and
the policy shall contain such an endorsement. The insurance policy or the endorsement shall
contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City. The insurance policy shall not contain an
exclusion for inverse condemnation.
9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel
reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City Parties from and against any and all
Claims, including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or
indirectly from the development or construction of the Project and, if applicable from
compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and/or from any other acts or omissions of
Developer under this Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Developer or any of
Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees; provided that Developer’s
obligation to indemnify and hold harmless (but not Developer’s duty to defend) may be limited
to the extent such Claims are found to arise solely from the active negligence or willful
misconduct of any City Party. This Section 9.2 includes any and all present and future Claims
arising out of or in any way connected with Developer’s or its contractors’ obligations to comply
with any applicable State Labor Code requirements and implementing regulations of the
Department of Industrial Relations pertaining to “public works” (collectively, “Prevailing Wage
Laws”), including all claims that may be made by contractors, subcontractors, or other third
party claimants under Labor Code sections 1726 and 1781. Developer’s obligations under this
Section 9.2 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge. City and
Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any court action or proceeding instituted by a third
party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this
Agreement, or the Project Approvals (“Litigation Challenge”), and the Parties shall keep each
CC 03-03-20
228 of 873
25
other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality
requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. To the extent Developer
desires to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, (a) Developer shall take the lead role
defending such Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the
legal counsel of its choice, with the costs of such representation, including Developer’s
administrative, legal and court costs, paid solely by Developer; (b) City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice in any such action
or proceeding with the costs of such representation including City’s administrative, legal, and
court costs and City Attorney oversight expenses, paid by Developer; and (c) Developer shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees
or cost awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5,
assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. Any proposed
settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s and Developer’s approval not to be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would
constitute an amendment or modification of this Agreement or any Project Approvals, the
settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by
City and Developer in accordance with Applicable Law, and City reserves its full legislative
discretion with respect to any such City approval. If Developer opts not to contest or defend
such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so. Developer shall reimburse
City for its costs incurred in connection with the Litigation Challenge within ten (10) business
days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during
such litigation. Developer’s obligations under this Section 9.3 shall survive expiration or earlier
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 10
ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
10.1 Assignment. A material consideration and incentive for City agreeing to enter
this Agreement are those Public Benefit Covenants described in Article 5 that are dependent on
the Property being developed and operated on a long-term basis as an “Upper Upscale” hotel as
described in Section 5.3. For that reason, certain restrictions on the right of Developer to assign
or transfer its interest under this Agreement with respect to the Property during the Term are
necessary to assure the achievement of the goals, objectives, and public benefits of the Project
and this Agreement. Developer agrees to and accepts the restrictions set forth in this Section
10.1 as reasonable and as a material inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
10.1.1 Assignment Criteria. Developer shall have the right to sell or transfer its
fee interest, or ground lease its interests in the Property, or convey or assign its right to operate a
hotel or similar business on the Property, or enter into a contract for operation of a hotel or
similar business, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, company, corporation, or other
entity (any of the foregoing, an “Assignee”) subject to the reasonable satisfaction and written
consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned,
if Developer or the Assignee satisfies the following conditions:
10.1.1.1 The proposed Assignee provides acceptable and verifiable
documentation that it is in the business of developing, owning, and/or operating “Upper
Upscale” hotels as described in Section 5.3 and has substantial experience in such hotel
CC 03-03-20
229 of 873
26
operations, such experience being at a minimum developing, owning, and/or operating two or
more such hotels within the preceding ten years;
10.1.1.2 The proposed Assignee provides acceptable and verifiable
documentation that it has sufficient financial resources to undertake development and/or
operation of the Property as an “Upper Upscale” hotel and perform the obligations of Developer
under this Agreement, including providing the Public Benefit Covenants;
10.1.1.3 Developer is not in Default under this Agreement or under any
Public Benefit Covenant, or the Assignee agrees to cure any Default promptly after the
assignment;
10.1.2 Affiliate Assignment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may
assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of City (but after providing City the
notice and Assignee’s assumption agreement pursuant to Section 10.1.3) to any corporation,
limited liability company, partnership, or other entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with Developer. “Control” for purposes of this section 10.1.2 means effective
management and control of the other entity, subject only to major events requiring the consent or
approval of the other owners of such entity (“Affiliated Party”).
10.1.3 Notice. At least thirty (30) days prior to Developer’s desired assignment
date, Developer shall provide City with written notice of any proposed transfer or assignment of
Developer’s rights or obligations hereunder (each, an “Assignment”) together with such
information needed to document satisfaction of the conditions in Section 10.1 required for an
Assignment, and request City’s consent to such Assignment as provided herein. Each such
notice shall be accompanied by evidence of Assignee’s assumption of Developer’s obligations
hereunder in the form of Exhibit G, which shall be recorded in the Official Records of Santa
Clara County (assuming City approves the Assignment) concurrent with transfer to the Assignee.
City shall provide its written consent or other response within thirty (30) days after City’s receipt
of the notice and required documentation.
10.1.4 Payment of Costs. Developer shall pay the actual costs borne by City in
connection with its review of the proposed Assignment, including costs of attorney review.
10.2 Release of Transferring Developer. Except with respect to a permitted transfer
and assignment to an Affiliated Party, notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or assignment of the
Property, Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement as to all of the Property
so transferred unless City has consented to the assignment as provided above and receives and
records Assignee’s assumption agreement.
10.3 Assignment to Financial Institutions or Mortgagee.
10.3.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Developer may
assign all or any part of its rights and duties under this Agreement to any financial institution or
Mortgagee from which Developer has borrowed funds for use in constructing the Project or
otherwise developing the Property. Neither such assignment nor the financing shall require
consent from City; provided, City shall be given notice of such intended assignment at least ten
business days beforehand, and before such assignment may take effect such financial institution
CC 03-03-20
230 of 873
27
or Mortgagee shall give City confirmation acknowledging and agreeing that its interest in the
Property is subject to this Agreement and, both during and after the Term, to the Public Benefit
Covenants. Developer shall provide a copy of the deed of trust to City within ten (10) business
days following execution thereof. A conditional assignment or other transfer by a financial
institution or Mortgagee back to Developer as part of any financing transaction shall not require
City’s consent.
10.3.2 Any person acquiring title or taking possession of the Property from a
financial institution or Mortgagee following a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure must
satisfy the criteria for an Assignee in Section 10.1.1, with documentation of such satisfaction
provided to City before transfer of title or possession.
10.4 Successive Assignment. In the event there is more than one Assignment under
the provisions of this Article 10, the provisions of this Article 10 shall apply to each successive
Assignment and Assignee.
ARTICLE 11
MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
11.1 Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach hereof
shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage, deed of trust, security
agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or
any of Developer’s rights under this Agreement (“Mortgage”) made in good faith and for value.
Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit Developer, at its sole discretion, from granting
one or more Mortgages encumbering all or a portion of Developer’s interest in the Property or
portion thereof or improvements thereon as security for one or more loans or other financing, but
all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective
against and shall run to the benefit of a Mortgagee who acquires title or possession to the
Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or
otherwise. Any Mortgage shall be subject and subordinate to this Agreement even if this
Agreement has not yet been recorded. Developer’s failure to provide the City with a copy of the
Mortgage within ten (10) days after its recording in the official records of Santa Clara County
and a copy of a recorded document or documents demonstrating that the Mortgage has been
subordinated to this Agreement shall be a Default; provided, however, that Developer’s failure to
provide such document shall not affect any Mortgage, including without limitation, the validity,
priority or enforceability of such Mortgage.
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee (including one who acquires title or
possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of
foreclosure, or otherwise) shall have any obligation to construct or complete construction of
improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a
Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any use except in full compliance with
this Agreement, the Project Approvals, and Subsequent Approvals nor to construct any
improvements thereon or institute any uses other than those uses or improvements provided for
or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under the Project Approvals and Subsequent
Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 11.2, all of the terms and conditions
contained in this Agreement, the other Project Approvals, and Subsequent Approvals shall be
CC 03-03-20
231 of 873
28
binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of any person or entity, including
any Mortgagee, or its transferee, who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion
thereof.
11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee
requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer hereunder and specifying the
address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to
such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any Notice of Default given to
Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer
to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed or the areas
of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain
possession in order to cure any Default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee
is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in
no event may this period exceed 120 days after the date City delivers the Notice of Default to
Developer.
11.4 No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 11 shall be deemed to supersede or
release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision or public
improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this
Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 11 constitute an obligation of City to such
Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 11.3.
11.5 Mortgagee Requested Amendments. The Parties agree that they will make
reasonable amendments to this Agreement, at the expense of Developer, to meet the
requirements of any lender or Mortgagee for the Project. For the purposes of this Section 11.5, a
reasonable amendment is one that does not relieve Developer of any of its material obligations
under this Agreement or impair the ability of the City to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
The Parties further agree that any reasonable amendments to the Mortgagee protection provisions
of this Agreement required to conform to current industry practice, as determined by City, would
qualify as an Administrative Agreement Amendment and may be processed in accordance with
the provisions of Article 8 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 12
DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
12.1 Breach and Default. Subject to a Permitted Delay in Section 13.4 or a mutual
extension pursuant to Section 13.11, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, breach of,
failure, or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement
shall constitute a “Default.” In the event of any alleged Default of any term, condition, or
obligation of this Agreement, the Party alleging such Default shall give the defaulting Party
notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged Default and the manner in which the
Default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Breach”). The defaulting Party shall cure the
Default within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach, provided, however, if
the nature of the alleged Default is non-monetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured
within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period,
and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter at the earliest practicable date,
shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not so diligently prosecuted to
CC 03-03-20
232 of 873
29
completion, then no additional cure period shall be required to be provided. If the alleged failure
is cured within the time provided above, then no Default shall exist, and the noticing Party shall
take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not
cured, then a Default shall exist under this Agreement and the non-defaulting Party may exercise
any of the remedies available under this Agreement.
12.2 Withholding of Permits. In the event of a Default by Developer, or following
City sending a Notice of Breach to Developer pursuant to Section 12.1 above and during the cure
period provided therein, upon a finding by the City Manager that Developer is in breach, City
shall have the right to refuse to issue any permit or other Subsequent Approval to which
Developer would otherwise have been entitled pursuant to this Agreement until such Default or
breach is cured. This provision is in addition to and shall not limit any actions that City may take
to enforce the conditions of the Project Approvals.
12.3 Termination. In the event of a Default by a Party, the non-defaulting Party shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving notice of intent to terminate pursuant to
Government Code section 65868 and regulations of City implementing such section
(“Termination”). Following notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for
consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code section 65867 and City
regulations implementing said section. Following consideration of the evidence presented in
said review before the City Council, a Party alleging Default by the other Party may give written
notice of Termination of this Agreement to the other Party. Termination of this Agreement shall
be subject to the provisions of Section 12.9 hereof.
12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition. If City issues a Project
Approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by
Developer in the future, and if Developer then fails to satisfy such condition, City shall be
entitled to an award of specific performance for the purpose of causing Developer to satisfy such
condition.
12.5 Legal Actions.
12.5.1 Institution of Legal or Equitable Actions. In addition to any other rights or
remedies, a Party may institute legal or equitable action for mandamus, specific performance, or
other injunctive or declaratory relief to cure, correct, or remedy any Default, to enforce any
covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, or to
obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose and terms of this Agreement. Any such
legal action shall be brought in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California, except for
actions that include claims in which a Federal District Court has original jurisdiction, in which
case the Northern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue.
12.5.2 Acceptance of Service of Process. If any legal action is commenced by
Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the
City Clerk of City or in such other manner as may be provided by law. If any legal action is
commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by
personal service upon Developer’s General Counsel, Developer’s registered agent for service of
process, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.
CC 03-03-20
233 of 873
30
12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties are
cumulative, and the exercise by a Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not
preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the
same Default or any other Default by the other Party, except as otherwise expressly provided
herein.
12.7 No Damages. In no event shall a Party, or its boards, commissions, officers,
agents, or employees, be liable in damages for any Default under this Agreement, it being
expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to a Party for a breach or
violation of this Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific
performance, or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement
by the other Party, or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude
actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or fees or the performance of obligations
requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Agreement
including, but not limited to, obligations to pay the Community Amenity Payment, Annual TMA
Fee, attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with
the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants, and represents that it has been fully
informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with,
the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such
advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s
rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights
and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely solely on the remedies provided for
herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other Party.
12.8 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving the Project, the
resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, a Party shall, at the
request of another Party, meet with designated representatives of the requesting Party promptly
following its request. The Parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any
such disputes. In the event the Parties are unable to resolve the issue and reach an agreement
within thirty (30) days, either Party may initiate non-binding mediation of the dispute by
submitting a request to the other Party. The Parties will select a mutually acceptable mediator
with knowledge and experience in project development and construction issues of the type at
issue, within fourteen (14) days, or if unable to agree on a mediator within said period, either
party may submit the matter to mediation at JAMS or other mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties in accordance with its then applicable rules and policies, with each Party
being responsible for its own fees, costs, and expenses of any mediation, including fifty percent
(50%) of the mediator's fees, costs, and expenses The Parties will take all practicable steps to
complete any mediation within ninety (90) days. Nothing in this Section 12.8 shall in any way
be interpreted as requiring that Developer or City reach agreement with regard to those matters
being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or
Developer unless expressly agreed to in writing by the Parties to such meetings.
12.9 Surviving Provisions. In the event of Termination of this Agreement, neither
Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of
Developer which by their terms survive expiration or Termination hereof, including but not
limited to those obligations set forth in Article 5 and Sections 9.2 and 9.3 (“Surviving
Provisions”).
CC 03-03-20
234 of 873
31
ARTICLE 13
GENERAL PROVISIONS
13.1 Condemnation. As used herein, “Material Condemnation” means a
condemnation of all or a portion of the Property that will have the effect of materially impeding
or preventing development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Project
Approvals. In the event of a Material Condemnation, Developer may (a) request City to amend
this Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and/or to amend the
Project Approvals, which amendment shall not be unreasonably withheld; (b) decide, in its sole
discretion, to challenge the condemnation; or (c) request that City agree to terminate this
Agreement by mutual agreement, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld, by giving
a written request for termination to City. If the condemnation is not a Material Condemnation,
Developer shall have no right to request termination of this Agreement under this Section 13.1.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be, or deemed to be, any waiver or release by Developer of any
compensation or damages awarded pursuant to a Material Condemnation.
13.2 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land. Except as
otherwise more specifically provided in this Agreement, this Agreement and all of its provisions,
rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants, and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties
and their respective successors and assigns by sale, trustee’s sale, lease, license, assignment,
merger, consolidation, or otherwise, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or
any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to
the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government
Code section 65868.5, and shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants
running with the land under applicable laws.
13.3 Notice. Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or
desired to be given in connection herewith shall be given in writing and directed to City and
Developer as follows:
If to the City: City Clerk
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
with a copy to: City Attorney
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
CC 03-03-20
235 of 873
32
and a copy to: City Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
If to Developer: Northwest Properties LP
Attn: John Vidovich
960 N. San Antonio Road #114
Los Altos, CA 94022
with a copy to: Lender’s name, address, and responsible person to
be inserted before Agreement signed
Notices to be deemed effective shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or
commercial courier, with delivery to be effective upon verification of receipt. Any Party may
change its respective address for notices by providing written notice of such change to the other
Parties.
13.4 Permitted Delays.
13.4.1 Performance by either Party of an obligation hereunder shall be excused
during any period of Permitted Delay. “Permitted Delay” shall mean delay beyond the
reasonable control of a Party caused by an inability to perform caused by (a) calamities,
including without limitation earthquakes, floods, and fire; (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or
terrorist acts; (d) lockouts, strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) material
shortages of labor, equipment, facilities, materials or supplies; (f) vandalism; (g) failure of
transportation or freight embargos; (h) condemnation or requisition; (i) litigation challenge,
referendum, or initiative; (j) orders of governmental, civil, military, or naval authority, including
any development, water, or sewer moratorium; (k) the failure of any governmental agency,
public utility, or communication provider to issue a permit, authorization, consent, or approval
required for development, construction, use, or operation of the Project or portion thereof within
typical, standard or customary timeframes; or (l) unusually severe weather, but only to the extent
that such weather or its effects (including, without limitation, dry out time) result in delays that
cumulatively exceed twenty (20) days for any winter season. A Party’s financial inability to
perform or obtain financing or adverse economic conditions shall not be grounds for claiming a
Permitted Delay.
13.4.2 The Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its
intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of
the Permitted Delay. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the
Permitted Delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if
Notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent within thirty (30) days after the
commencement of the claimed cause. If Notice is sent after such thirty (30) day period, then the
extension shall commence to run no sooner than thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such
Notice. The period of Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing
CC 03-03-20
236 of 873
33
performance. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, the Term of this
Agreement shall not be extended by the period of any Permitted Delay.
13.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
13.6 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any failure of
or delay by any Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Agreement shall not
operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies, or deprive the Party of its right to institute
and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or
enforce any such rights or remedies. A Party may specifically and expressly waive in writing
any condition or breach of this Agreement by the other Party, but no such waiver shall constitute
a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other
provision. Consent by one Party to any act by the other Party shall not be deemed to imply
consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts in the
future.
13.7 Construction of Agreement. All Parties have been represented by counsel in the
preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed according
to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to
be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be
deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be
deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is
permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and
(f) ”days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise.
13.8 Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are
not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this
Agreement.
13.9 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any
term or provision of this Agreement to a specific situation, is found to be invalid, or
unenforceable, in whole or in part for any reason, the remaining terms and provisions of this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement
would be defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provisions, in which case any Party
deprived of an essential benefit thereunder shall have the option to terminate this Agreement
from and after such determination by providing written notice thereof to the other Party.
13.10 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. All references
to time in this Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California.
13.11 Extension of Time Limits. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be
extended by Permitted Delays or mutual consent in writing of the Parties in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement.
CC 03-03-20
237 of 873
34
13.12 Other Necessary Acts. Each Party shall in good faith do all things as may
reasonably be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Agreement, the Project Approvals, and
the Subsequent Approvals, and to execute with acknowledgment or affidavit if required and
deliver to the other, file or submit all such further information, instruments, and documents as
may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Project Approvals
and this Agreement and to provide and secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment
of its rights and privileges under this Agreement.
13.13 Signatures. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that
they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this
Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of Developer and City.
13.14 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all Recitals and all exhibits
attached hereto, each of which is fully incorporated herein by reference), integrates all of the
terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and constitutes the entire
understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or
contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, representations and statements, and all prior
written agreements, understandings, representations, and statements are terminated and
superseded by this Agreement.
13.15 Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to
time, deliver written notice to City requesting City to certify in writing to Developer or any
Mortgagee (a) that this Agreement is in full force and effect; (b) that this Agreement has not
been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or
modifications, or terminated or if terminated the subject of termination; (c) that Developer is not
in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, describing therein the nature and
extent of any such Defaults; (d) those obligations under this Agreement that have been satisfied
since the date of the last annual review and those obligations under this Agreement that remain
unsatisfied; and (e) such other information or matters relating to this Agreement and/or the
Project as may be reasonably requested by Developer. Developer shall pay, within thirty (30)
days following receipt of City’s invoice, the actual costs borne by City in connection with its
review of the proposed estoppel certificate, including the costs of attorney review. The City
Manager shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. The
form of estoppel certificate shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. The
City Manager shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following
Developer’s request therefor. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may
be relied upon by tenants, transferees, investors, partners, bond counsel, underwriters, bond
holders, and Mortgagees. The request shall clearly indicate that failure of the City to respond
within the thirty-day period will lead to a second and final request. Failure to respond to the
second and final request within fifteen (15) days of receipt thereof shall be deemed approval of
the estoppel certificate.
13.16 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or
approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act
on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise or the context requires otherwise.
CC 03-03-20
238 of 873
35
13.17 Negation of Partnership. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is
a private development, that no Party to this Agreement is acting as the agent of any other in any
respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the
terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions
of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the
businesses of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered
joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.
13.18 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the
sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including
Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this
Agreement.
13.19 Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions.
13.20 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference for all purposes as if set forth herein in full:
Exhibit A: Property Legal Description
Exhibit B: Property Boundary and Depiction of the Project
Exhibit C: Description of the Project
Exhibit D: Existing Impact Fees
Exhibit E: Accepted Conditions of Title
Exhibit F: Annual Review Form
Exhibit G: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
If the recorder refuses to record any exhibit, the City Clerk may replace it with a single
sheet bearing the exhibit identification letter, stating the title of the exhibit, the reason it is not
being recorded, and that the original, certified by the City Clerk, is in the possession of the City
Clerk and will be reattached to the original when it is returned by the recorder to the City Clerk.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
CC 03-03-20
239 of 873
CC 03-03-20
240 of 873
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
State of California )
) ss
County of ___________ )
On , before me,___________________________________________,
(Name of Notary)
notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Notary Signature)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
CC 03-03-20
241 of 873
CC 03-03-20
242 of 873
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO, IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL ONE:
All of Parcel "B", as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Parcel Map being all of Parcel 2 as
shown on Parcel Map recorded in Book 265 of Maps, at Page 16", which Map was filed for
record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on August
20, 1970 in Book 272 of Maps, at Page 5.
Excepting therefrom the underground water rights, as granted in Deed from Paul Mariani and
Mary Frances Mariani, His Wife, Skaggs Payless Drug Stores and Transamerica Title Insurance
Company, to City of Cupertino, A Municipal Corporation, dated December 29, 1969 and
recorded April 29, 1970 in Book 8905 of Official Records, Page 622.
PARCEL TWO:
Non-exclusive easements appurtenant to PARCEL ONE above for pedestrian and vehicular
ingress and egress and parking, and also for footings, foundations and eaves, as granted in that
certain Declaration of Encumbrances recorded February 27, 1970 in Book 8843, Page 364, of
Official Records, and as modified by that certain Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances
recorded July 23, 1970, in Book 8996, page 735, of Official Records, and as further modified by
that certain Second Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances recorded September 8, 2011 as
Instrument No. 21307879, of Official Records, and as further modified by that certain Third
Amendment to Declaration of Encumbrances recorded October 22, 2012 as Instrument No.
21910015, of Official Records.
APN: 326-10-061
CC 03-03-20
243 of 873
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
SITE MAP AND DEPICTION OF PROJECT
CC 03-03-20
244 of 873
$$$$
1:
6:
1:
1(
6:
6:'($1=$%28/(9$5'
/2$',1*=21(123$5.,1*)+)+
&83(57,12+27(/
6+233,1*&(17(55(7$,/5(7$,/1(:+27(/'(&25$7,9(3$9,1*$7(175<'5,9( ( '5,9(:$<$&3$9,1*WK)/225:$///,1(%(/2:7(55$&(21QG6725<%(/2:*5((1522)21QG6725<%(/2:0(&+(48,36&5((1:$//(/(9$7256 522)67$,5522)%$5522)+286(.((3,1*(/(9$725522)'(',&$7,21/,1(522)7(55$&(0(&+(48,36&5((1:$//WK)/225522)'RR°JXG]OTMY°GTJ°]XOZZKT°SGZKXOGR°GVVKGXOTMNKXKOT°IUTYZOZ[ZK°UXOMOTGR°GTJ°[TV[HROYNKJ]UXQ°UL°ZNK°*KYOMTKX°GTJ°SG_°TUZ°]OZNU[Z]XOZZKT°IUTYKTZ°UL°ZNK°*KYOMTKX°HKJ[VROIGZKJ°[YKJ°UX°JOYIRUYKJ°OT°]NURK°UX°OTVGXZ°LUX°JKYOMT°LGHXOIGZOUTY°UX°IUTYZX[IZOUTUL°GT_°H[ORJOTM°YZX[IZ[XK°UX°OSVXU\KSKTZUX°VUXZOUT°ZNKXKUL°UZNKX°ZNGT°ZNK°YVKIOLOIVXUPKIZ°ZU°]NOIN°OZ°VKXZGOTY*GZK9NKKZ°*GZK9IGRK*XG]T0UH9NKKZI°°=OTQRKSGT°*KYOMTY° 7INKLEMAN$ESIGNS!MAYA2IDGE2OAD3OQUEL #!4EL
&AX
BILL WINKLEMANDESIGNSCOM2%6)3)/.31
& ?8VHUV?%LOO?'RFXPHQWV?'$+&(1 B6WRU\B)LQDOBELOO#ZLQNOHPDQGHVLJQVFRPUYW 30 :$6LWH3ODQ7KH'H$Q]D'H$Q]D3URSHUWLHV 1'H$Q]D%OYG&XSHUWLQR&$1R 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQCC 03-03-20 245 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:48:29 PMA11.01SE ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 246 of 873
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT C
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Northwest Properties LP, the project applicant, is proposing the De Anza Hotel Project
(“proposed project”) that would involve the construction of a boutique hotel on a 1.29-acre site.
The site is currently developed with a commercial building operated as the Goodyear Auto
Service Center. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing commercial
building and redeveloping the site with a new 156-room boutique hotel, including event meeting
rooms, restaurant, and bars. The proposed project would establish a six-story hotel with four
levels of below-grade parking.
The building would have a maximum height of 88 feet, subject to applicable
requirements in the General Plan.
CC 03-03-20
247 of 873
Exhibit D
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING IMPACT FEES
1. Housing Mitigation Fee – City Code Chapter 19.172
2. Public Art Contribution – City Code Chapter 19.148
3. Citywide Transportation Impact Fee – City Code Chapter 14.02
4. Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee – City Code Chapter 13.08 (not applicable because hotel
use is considered non-residential)
CC 03-03-20
248 of 873
Exhibit E-1
EXHIBIT E
ACCEPTED CONDITIONS OF TITLE
1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any
assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2018-2019.
2. Current fiscal year property taxes, including supplemental taxes, escaped
assessments, delinquencies, personal property taxes, and any assessments collected with taxes.
Current fiscal year taxes are:
Code Area: 013-003
Tax Identification No.: 326-10-061
Fiscal Year: 2019-2020
1st Installment: $12,507.60, Open
2nd Installment: $12,507.60, Open
Exemption: $0.00
Land: $1,801,736.00
Improvements: $0.00
Personal Property: $0.00
Bill No.: 326-10-061-00
3. Special Tax for Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority
Community Facilities District No. 2013- 1, under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of
1982, as disclosed by a Proposed Boundary Map filed for record on April 26, 2013 in Book 48 of
Assessment Maps, Page(s) 36-37 as Instrument No. 22194943, Official Records, and further
disclosed by Notice of Special Tax Lien recorded January 22, 2014, Instrument No. 22502535,
Official Records, payable in continuing installments collected with the real property taxes.
4. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3,
Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a
result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in
ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. None Now Due Or Payable.
5. Waiver of any claims for damages to said property by reason of the location,
construction, landscaping or maintenance of the freeway adjoining said property, as contained in
the deed to the State of California, recorded June 27, 1962, Instrument No. 2233695, Book 5662,
Page 424, of Official Records.
6. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as
granted in a document.
Granted to: Cupertino Sanitary District of Santa Clara County
CC 03-03-20
249 of 873
Exhibit E-2
Purpose: To excavate for, install, replace (of the initial or any other size) maintain and use for
conveying sewage such pipeline
Recorded: January 19, 1970, Instrument No. 3750067, Book 8803, Page 47, of Official Records
Affects: As Follows:
An easement 10.00 feet in width, the centerline of which is more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning on a line drawn parallel with and 60.00 feet Westerly, measured at right angles, from
the centerline of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, distant along said parallel line North 0 deg. 02' 52"
East 323.76 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southerly line of that certain 10-acre
parcel conveyed to Paul Andrew Mariani, Jr. et al to Winifred Pauline Thiltgen, et al, by Deed
recorded November 12, 1965 in Book 7176 of Official Records at Page 743, Santa Clara County
Records; thence from said Point of Beginning, leaving said parallel line South 70 deg. 14' 01"
West 142.72 feet to a point on a line drawn parallel with and 276 feet Northerly measured at
right angles, from Southerly line, thence along said last described line 89 deg. 47' 00" West
660.00 feet.
7. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions,
if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,
familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, citizenship, immigration
status, primary language, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except
to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the
document
Recorded: February 27, 1970, Instrument No. 3769669, Book 8843, Page 364, of Official
Records
Modification(s) of said covenants, conditions and restrictions in that certain Amendment to
Declaration of Encumbrances
Recorded: July 23, 1970, Instrument No. 3844373, Book 8996, Page 735, of Official Records
Modification(s) of said covenants, conditions and restrictions in that certain Second Amendment
to Declaration of Encumbrances
Recorded: September 8, 2011, Instrument No. 21307879, of Official Records
Modification(s) of said covenants, conditions and restrictions in that certain Third Amendment to
Declaration of Encumbrances
Recorded: October 22, 2012, Instrument No. 21910015, of Official Records
CC 03-03-20
250 of 873
Exhibit E-3
8. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as
granted in a document.
Granted to: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a California corporation
Purpose: To construct, place, inspect, maintain, operate, replace and remove facilities
consisting of underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires,
cables and other electrical conductors, above ground marker posts, risers and
service pedestals; underground and above ground switches, fuses, terminals and
transformers with associated concrete pads together with a right of way therefore
and the right of ingress and egress Recorded: July 1, 1970, Instrument No.
3832386, Book 8972, Page 657, of Official Records
Affects: Said Facilities shall be installed within the strips of land described as follows:
1. A strip of land of the uniform width of 20 feet lying contiguous to and Northerly of the
Southerly boundary line of said real property and extending from the Westerly boundary line of
the street known as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Westerly 350.0 feet.
2. A strip of land of the uniform width of 12 feet lying contiguous to and Northerly of the
Southerly boundary line of said real property and extending from the Westerly boundary line of
the 20 foot strip of land hereinbefore described and designated 1, Westerly 852 feet, more or
less, to the Westerly boundary line of said real property.
9. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as
delineated or as offered for dedication, on the Parcel Map filed for record on August 20, 1970 in
Book 272 of Maps, Page 5.
Purpose: Roof Overhang Easement
Affects: A portion of said land as shown on said Map
10. Covenants, conditions and restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions,
if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,
familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, citizenship, immigration
status, primary language, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except
to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the
document
Recording Date: October 29, 1971
Recording No: 4125842, Book 9568, Page 164, of Official Records
Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the
lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value.
CC 03-03-20
251 of 873
Exhibit E-4
11. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as
granted in a document.
Granted to: City of Cupertino
Purpose: Public roadway purposes, with the right to construct, repair, operate and maintain any
and all Public Utilities and improvements
Recorded: January 4, 1991, Instrument No. 10769097, Book L584, Page 1245, of Official
Records
Affects: Being a portion of Parcel B as it appears on Parcel Map filed on August 20, 1970 in
Book 272 of Maps, at Page 5, Santa Clara County Records, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Homestead Road and the centerline of De
Anza Boulevard shown as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road on aforementioned Parcel Map; Thence, S.
00 deg. 02' 52" W., 232.38 feet along the said centerline of De Anza Boulevard; Thence, at right
angles to the centerline of De Anza Boulevard, N. 89 deg. 57' 08" W., 60.00 feet to the point in
the Westerly sideline of the De Anza Boulevard also being the Northeast corner of Parcel A as
shown on aforementioned Parcel Map; Thence, along the Westerly sideline of De Anza
Boulevard and the Easterly line of said Parcel A, S. 00 deg. 02' 52" W., 117.30 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Parcel A and the Northeast corner of Parcel B, as shown on said Map,
also being the True Point of Beginning. Thence, from said True Point of Beginning, along the
Westerly sideline of De Anza Boulevard and the Easterly line of said Parcel B, S. 00 deg. 02' 52"
W., 308.62 feet to the Southeast corner of said Parcel B and the Northeast corner of that certain
2.006 _+ acre parcel shown on Record of Survey filed September 18, 1962 in Book 152 of Maps,
at Page 10, Santa Clara County Records. Thence, along the Southerly line of said Parcel B and
the Northerly line of said 2.006 _+ acre parcel, S 89 deg. 47' 00" W., 10.00 feet; Thence, N. 00
deg. 43' 13" E., 308.66 feet to the Southerly line of said Parcel A and the Northerly line of said
Parcel B; Thence, along the Southerly line of said Parcel A and the Northerly line of said Parcel
B, N. 89 deg. 47' 00" E., 6.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
12. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as
granted in a document.
Granted to: City of Cupertino, A Municipal Corporation
Purpose: The right to excavate for, install, replace (of the initial or any other size), maintain and
use for sidewalk purposes
Recorded: February 23, 1994, Instrument No. 12370977, Book N316, Page 0261, of Official
Records
Affects: Being a portion of Parcel B as it appears on Parcel Map filed on August 20, 1970 in
Book 272 of Maps, at Page 5, Santa Clara County Records, more particularly described as
follows:
CC 03-03-20
252 of 873
Exhibit E-5
Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Homestead Road and the centerline of De
Anza Boulevard shown as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road on aforementioned Parcel Map; Thence, S.
00 deg. 02' 52" W., 232.38 feet along the said centerline of De Anza Boulevard; Thence, at right
angles to the centerline of De Anza Boulevard, N. 89 deg. 57' 08" W., 60.00 feet to the Northeast
corner of Parcel A as shown on aforementioned Parcel Map; Thence, along the Easterly line of
Parcel A, South 00 deg. 02' 52" West, 117.30 feet to the Southeast corner of said Parcel A and
the Northeast corner of Parcel B, as shown on said Map. Thence, along the Southerly line of said
Parcel A, South 89 deg. 47' 00" West, 6.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence, from
said True Point of Beginning, along the Westerly sideline of De Anza Boulevard South 00 deg.
43' 13" West, 308.62 feet to the Northerly boundary of that certain 2.006 _+ acre parcel shown
on Record of Survey filed September 18, 1962 in Book 152 of Maps, at Page 10, Santa Clara
County Records. Thence, along the Southerly line of said Parcel B and the Northerly line of said
2.006 acre _+ Parcel, South 89 deg. 47' 00" West, 5.00 feet.
END OF ACCEPTED CONDITIONS OF TITLE
CC 03-03-20
253 of 873
Exhibit F-1
EXHIBIT F
ANNUAL REVIEW FORM
[TO BE SUBMITTED BY DECEMBER 1ST OF EACH YEAR]
This Annual Review Form is submitted to the City of Cupertino (“City”) by Northwest
Properties LP (“Developer”) pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code
section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.144 of the City’s Municipal Code regarding Developer’s good
faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement between the City and
Developer having an Effective Date of ________________ (“Development Agreement”). All
Article and Section references are to the Development Agreement. Any capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Development
Agreement.
Annual Review Period: ______________ to ______________.
Generally summarize the status of Developer’s efforts and progress in processing permit
applications and constructing the Project.
Generally summarize specific strategies to be followed in the coming year intended to
facilitate the processing of permits and/or Project construction.
Specify whether Developer’s compliance with any of the following agreements have
been satisfied during this annual review period:
• _______________________________________________?
Specify whether applicable Existing Impact Fees, processing fees, connection fees,
and/or other fees due and payable under Article 4 have been paid during this annual review
period, including but not limited to the following:
• Housing Mitigation Fees
• Public Art Contribution
• Transportation Impact Fees
• _
Describe Developer’s compliance with the following Public Benefit Covenants under
Article 5 during this annual review period:
• Community Amenity Payment pursuant to Section 5.1.1.
• Shuttle Service pursuant to Section 5.1.4.
• Meeting Room Benefit pursuant to Section 5.1.5.
CC 03-03-20
254 of 873
Exhibit F-2
• Rooftop Amenity pursuant to Section 5.1.8.
• Transient Occupancy Tax Requirement, including any TOT In-lieu Payment,
pursuant to Section 5.2.
• Minimum Hotel Standard pursuant to Section 5.3.
• City of Cupertino Business License pursuant to Section 5.4.
• Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation pursuant to Section 5.5.
Describe whether other applicable Development Agreement obligations were completed
during this annual review period.
Describe any extension of the time limits or deadlines in the Development Agreement as
a result of Permitted Delay pursuant to Section 13.4.
Specify whether Developer has assigned the Development Agreement or otherwise
conveyed the Property during this annual review period.
Specify whether Developer has mortgaged the Property during this annual review period.
The undersigned representative confirms that Developer is:
______ In good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement for this
annual review period.
______ Not in good faith compliance with its obligations under the Development Agreement for
this annual review period, in response to which Developer is taking the actions set forth in the
attachment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer has executed this Annual Review Form as of this
____ day of _________________, 20__.
DEVELOPER:
Northwest Properties LP
By:__________________________________
Print Name:___________________________
Its:__________________________________
CC 03-03-20
255 of 873
Exhibit G-1
EXHIBIT G
FORM OF ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Gian Martire
City of Cupertino
City Hall
Planning Division
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Exempt from Recording Fee per
Government Code Section 27383
Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment of Rights and Obligations under Development Agreement (this
“Assignment”) is entered into this _____ day of ________________, 20__ (“Effective Date”),
by and between _________________________________________, a _________________
(“Assignor”) and _________________________________________, a _________________
(“Assignee”). Assignor and Assignee are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A. Assignor and the City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation (“City”)
have entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as of _________________ (“DA”)
which was recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County on __________________ as
Instrument No. _____________.
B. Assignor [has requested approval from the City of the assignment to Assignee
described herein pursuant to Section 10.1 of the DA] OR [has the right to make the
assignment to Assignee under Section 10.1 of the DA.]
C. [City has consented to the assignment described herein pursuant to Section 10.1
of the DA.] OR [Assignor has provided the City with documentation establishing that the
assignment is appropriate pursuant to Article 10 of the DA because _______________.]
CC 03-03-20
256 of 873
Exhibit G-2
A G R E E M E N T S
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Assignment and Assumption of Interest. Assignor hereby transfers, assigns, and
conveys to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest in and to, and all obligations,
duties, responsibilities, conditions, and restrictions under, the DA (the “Rights and
Obligations”). Assignee, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby accepts the foregoing
assignment, assumes all such Rights and Obligations, and expressly agrees for the benefit of City
to pay, perform, and discharge all obligations of Assignor under the DA and to comply with all
covenants and conditions of Assignor arising from or under the DA.
2. Governing Law; Venue. This Assignment shall be interpreted and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of
laws. Any action to enforce or interpret this Assignment shall be filed and litigated exclusively
in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California or in the Federal District Court for the
Northern District of California.
3. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Assignment constitutes the entire agreement
among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior written and
oral agreements with respect to the matters covered by this Assignment. This Assignment may
not be amended except by an instrument in writing signed by each of the Parties and consented
to in writing by City.
4. Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute and deliver such other certificates,
agreements and documents and take such other actions as may be reasonably required to
consummate or implement the transactions contemplated by this Assignment and the DA.
5. Benefit and Liability. Subject to the restrictions on transfer set forth in the DA,
this Assignment and all the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof shall extend to the benefit of
and be binding upon the respective successors and permitted assigns of the Parties.
6. Rights of City. All rights of City under the DA and all obligations to City under
the DA which were enforceable by City against Assignor prior to the Effective Date of this
Assignment shall be fully enforceable by City against Assignee from and after the Effective Date
of this Assignment.
7. Rights of Assignee. All rights of Assignor and obligations to Assignor under the
DA which were enforceable by Assignor against City prior to the Effective Date of this
Assignment shall be fully enforceable by Assignee against City from and after the Effective Date
of this Assignment.
8. Release. As of the Effective Date, Assignor hereby relinquishes all rights under
the DA, and all obligations of Assignor under the DA shall be terminated as to, and shall have no
more force or effect with respect to, Assignor, and Assignor is hereby released from any and all
obligations under the DA.
CC 03-03-20
257 of 873
Exhibit G-3
9. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any litigation pertaining to this Assignment, the
losing party shall pay the prevailing party’s litigation costs and expenses, including without
limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees.
10. City Consent; City Is A Third-Party Beneficiary. City’s countersignature below is
for the limited purposes of indicating consent to the assignment and assumption and release set
forth in this Assignment (if necessary under the DA) pursuant to Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the
DA, and for clarifying that there is privity of contract between City and Assignee with respect to
the DA. The City is an intended third-party beneficiary of this Assignment and has the right, but
not the obligation, to enforce the provisions hereof.
11. Recordation. Assignor shall cause this Assignment to be recorded in the Official
Records of Santa Clara County and shall promptly provide conformed copies of the recorded
Assignment to City and Assignee.
12. Address for Notices. Assignee’s address for notices, demands, and
communications under the DA is as follows:
______________________
______________________
______________________
13. Captions; Interpretation. The section headings used herein are solely for
convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Assignment. The Parties acknowledge that
this Assignment is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the
Parties agree that since both have participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Assignment,
this Assignment shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according
to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it.
14. Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Assignment or
its application to any party or circumstances shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
any extent invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Assignment, or the application of the
term, provision, condition, or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom
or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and shall be valid and
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the rights and obligations of the Parties
have been materially altered or abridged thereby.
15. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each of which
shall, irrespective of the date of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original, and the
counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[SIGNATURES START ON NEXT PAGE.]
CC 03-03-20
258 of 873
Exhibit G-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Assignor and Assignee have executed this Assignment as of the date
first set forth above.
ASSIGNOR:
________________________________, a
_________________________________
By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN
Name:
Its:
ASSIGNEE:
________________________________, a
_________________________________
By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN
Name:
Its:
[NOTE: The presence of the signature blocks below in this form shall not be deemed to
require the consent of the City to any assignment that does not otherwise require the
consent of City under the DA.]
City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation, hereby
consents to the assignment and assumption described in the
foregoing Assignment and Assumption Agreement.
CITY:
CITY OF CUPERTINO, a
California municipal corporation
By: FORM – DO NOT SIGN
_______________, City Manager
ATTEST:
________________, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________, City Attorney
CC 03-03-20
259 of 873
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
State of California )
) ss
County of ___________ )
On , before me,___________________________________________,
(Name of Notary)
notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Notary Signature)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
CC 03-03-20
260 of 873
Acknowledgements
State of California )
) ss
County of ___________ )
On , before me,___________________________________________,
(Name of Notary)
notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Notary Signature)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
CC 03-03-20
261 of 873
P:\181000s\181185_CupertinoHotel\Deliverable\EPS FIA GPAAuth-2018-01.docx
December 14, 2018
Mr. Gian Martire
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino Planning Division
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Fiscal Impact Considerations for GPAAuth-2018-01;
EPS #181185
Dear Mr. Martire:
During 2017 the City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare a fiscal analysis of a proposed General
Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow development of a new hotel at 10931
North De Anza Boulevard. At the time, the applicant proposed a 156-
room hotel with an onsite restaurant, spa, and convention/meeting
space. Since then, the applicant has reapplied (GPAAuth-2018-01) for a
155-room hotel. The current proposal is one story taller than the
previous proposed project (now six stories above grade) with reduced
building setbacks.
The 2017 EPS fiscal analysis of the prior proposed project (GPAAuth-
2017-01) estimated the net annual fiscal impact on the General Fund at
approximately $1.0 million to $1.5 million (see Attachment A). This
letter considers whether changes in market conditions and/or City
budget factors are likely to significantly affect EPS’s prior conclusions. As
part of this effort, EPS reviewed current hotel market data and the City’s
2018-19 budget. It is EPS’s judgement that the key findings of the 2017
fiscal analysis remain valid.
Cupertino Hotel Market
EPS reviewed current hotel market trends in Cupertino and surrounding
areas within three miles of the proposed hotel. The data, acquired by
EPS from Smith Travel Research, reveal a robust hotel market with
healthy occupancy and strong room rates. The market data indicate that
the 2017 fiscal analysis study’s consideration of average daily room
rates in the range of $200 to $300 still is reasonable. The local market
average room rate revealed by current market data is about $209
(October 2017-October 2018) and the proposed “luxury” hotel likely
would exceed this average. Since 2017, room rates have increased by
about 7 percent, while occupancy has remained steady at about 80
percent. Figure 1 and Figure 2 present average daily rates and
occupancy by month since January 2012.
CC 03-03-20
262 of 873
GPAAuth-2018-01
December 14, 2018
Page 2
P:\181000s\181185_CupertinoHotel\Deliverable\EPS FIA GPAAuth-2018-01.docx
Figure 1 Average Daily Room Rate - Cupertino Hotel Market Area
Source: Smith Travel Research and EPS
Figure 2 Occupancy Rate - Cupertino Hotel Market Area
Source: Smith Travel Research and EPS
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Jan 12Apr 12Jul 12Oct 12Jan 13Apr 13Jul 13Oct 13Jan 14Apr 14Jul 14Oct 14Jan 15Apr 15Jul 15Oct 15Jan 16Apr 16Jul 16Oct 16Jan 17Apr 17Jul 17Oct 17Jan 18Apr 18Jul 18Oct 18Average Daily Room RateMonth
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Jan 12Apr 12Jul 12Oct 12Jan 13Apr 13Jul 13Oct 13Jan 14Apr 14Jul 14Oct 14Jan 15Apr 15Jul 15Oct 15Jan 16Apr 16Jul 16Oct 16Jan 17Apr 17Jul 17Oct 17Jan 18Apr 18Jul 18Oct 18Occupancy RateMonth
CC 03-03-20
263 of 873
GPAAuth-2018-01
December 14, 2018
Page 3
P:\181000s\181185_CupertinoHotel\Deliverable\EPS FIA GPAAuth-2018-01.docx
City of Cupertino Expenditure Budget
EPS review of the City’s budgeting trend suggests that the public cost of proving City services
has remained similar to the assumptions used in the 2017 fiscal analysis. The current 2018-2019
Adopted City Budget anticipates General Fund expenditures of about $77.6 million, less than 1
percent greater than the $77.2 million expenditure budget (2016-2017 Adopted Budget)
considered by the 2017 fiscal analysis. This general consistency suggests that the cost of
providing services to new development projects in Cupertino has remained stable and that the
fiscal cost estimates provided by the 2017 fiscal analysis still are valid. Figure 3 presents the
City’s Adopted Budgets for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Figure 3 General Fund Expenditure Adopted Budget Trend
Source: City of Cupertino and EPS
Conclusion
The current hotel proposal for 10931 North De Anza Boulevard is slightly smaller than had been
previously proposed. However, room rates have increased somewhat since the 2017 fiscal
analysis and the City’s cost of public services is comparable to the prior analysis. Weighing all of
these factors, the anticipated net fiscal impact of the 155-room hotel still likely falls in the range
of $1.0 million to $1.5 million per year, or possibly slightly more due to the increase in average
daily room rates observed in the Cupertino hotel market.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.
Benjamin C. Sigman
Principal
$‐
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019
CC 03-03-20
264 of 873
ATTACHMENT A:
Memorandum:
Fiscal Analysis of the Cupertino Hotel GPA Application
CC 03-03-20
265 of 873
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.
CC 03-03-20
266 of 873
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 $1,487,000
CC 03-03-20
267 of 873
Memorandum July 21, 2017
Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 3
P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx
Table 2 Hotel Sensitivity Analysis (2017$)
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
CC 03-03-20
268 of 873
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 ProgramCC 03-03-20 269 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
270 of 873
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.
CC 03-03-20
271 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
272 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
273 of 873
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.
CC 03-03-20
274 of 873
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.
CC 03-03-20
275 of 873
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.CC 03-03-20 276 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
277 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
278 of 873
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
CC 03-03-20
279 of 873
June 19, 2019
Mr. Gian Martire
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Parking Generation Analysis for the Proposed Hotel Located at 10931 N.
De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino, CA
Dear Mr. Martire:
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking analysis for the proposed
hotel at 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. The project proposes a 155-room hotel,
including a restaurant with 78 seats, bar with 70 seats, and a 4,242 s.f. conference facility.
The project proposes 217 parking spaces.
Hexagon prepared an estimate of required parking spaces based on the ITE Parking
Generation Manual, 5th Edition. The manual provides average parking demand rates for
different land uses based on parking count research. Rates taken from the category of Hotel
(Land Use 310) were used to estimate peak hour parking demand. The hotels included in this
land use category typically include restaurants, bars, and conference rooms. Thus, the rates
encompass the restaurant, bar, and conference facility that are located in the proposed hotel
facility. Other lodging categories in the ITE manual are all-suites hotel, business hotel, and
motel. Those all have lower parking rates, but they don’t include ancillary facilities like
restaurants and meeting rooms. Therefore, Hotel (Land Use 310) is the most representative
category to the proposed hotel.
According to the ITE data, hotel parking peaks on Saturdays. As seen in Table 1, the 155-
room hotel is estimated to have a peak hour parking demand of 183 spaces. The current
parking lot design has 217 parking spaces, which is adequate to meet the peak demand.
In conclusion, the current proposal to include 217 parking spaces is more than enough to
provide an adequate number of parking spaces during peak hours.
CC 03-03-20
280 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
June 19, 2019
Page 2 of 2
Table 1
10931 N. De Anza Hotel Parking Demand Estimate
Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary K. Black
President
Land Use Rate Total
Proposed Use
Hotel1 155 rooms 1.18 183
1
Saturday Peak Parking Demand
Size
Notes:
Hotel (Land Use 310) average rates published in ITE's Parking Generation Manual,
5th Edition.
CC 03-03-20
281 of 873
Scale
Date
DrawnWinkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073
408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN18_GPA_6 Story_v5_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt11/12/2018 3:35:41 PMA11.01SE View
De Anza Properties
The De Anza
11/13/18
Author
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA The De Anza Hotel Project
for the City of Cupertino
July 2, 2019 | Public Review Draft Initial Study
Image Credit: Winkleman Designs, November 13, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
282 of 873
CC 03-03-20
283 of 873
Prepared By:
PlaceWorks
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO
www.placeworks.com
The De Anza Hotel Project
for the City of Cupertino
July 2, 2019
Public Review Draft Initial Study
CC 03-03-20
284 of 873
CC 03-03-20
285 of 873
PLACEWORKS i
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Initial Study............................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2 Tiering Process ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................................... 1-5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Initial Study Checklist .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Determination ...................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 2-3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Location and Site Characteristics ...................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Components ........................................................................................................3-13
3.3 Required Permits and Approvals ...................................................................................3-26
3.4 Voluntary Community Amenities ...................................................................................3-26
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation .......................................................................... 4-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......................................................... 5-1
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ............................................................................. 6-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C: Noise Data
Appendix D: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix E: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
SOURCES
In addition to the technical appendices, all documents cited in this report and used in its preparation are
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Copies of documents referenced herein are
available for review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
CC 03-03-20
286 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................................................3-15
Figure 3-5 First Floor Plan .....................................................................................................................3-16
Figure 3-6 Second Floor Plan .............................................................................................................3-17
Figure 3-7 Third Floor Plan ...................................................................................................................3-18
Figure 3-8 Roof Plan .............................................................................................................................3-19
Figure 3-9 West and East Elevations .................................................................................................3-20
Figure 3-10 North and South Elevations .............................................................................................3-21
CC 03-03-20
287 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Scope of the Proposed Project in the General Plan EIR and the Proposed
Project ................................................................................................................................... 1-3
Table 3-1 Demolition and Construction Phasing ..........................................................................3-25
Table 4-1 Existing Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................................. 4-8
Table 4-2 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates ...............................4-12
Table 4-3 Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates ...............................................4-13
Table 4-4 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated ..................................................................4-14
Table 4-5 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated .......................................................................4-16
Table 4-6 Project GHG Emissions ......................................................................................................4-38
Table 4-7 Project-Related Construction Noise, Energy-Average (Leq) Sound Levels,
dBA ......................................................................................................................................4-60
Table 4-8 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................................4-64
Table 4-9 Architectural Damage Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment ................4-65
Table 4-10 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ........4-74
Table 4-11 Existing without Project Intersection Level of Service .................................................4-75
Table 4-12 Existing Transit Service ......................................................................................................4-77
Table 4-13 Background without Project Intersection Level of Service Results ..........................4-79
Table 4-14 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................................4-80
Table 4-15 Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results ..........................................4-81
Table 4-16 Background plus Project Intersection Level of Service Results ................................4-82
Table 4-17 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Projects in Cupertino ............................ 4-101
Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................. 5-2
CC 03-03-20
288 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
CC 03-03-20
289 of 873
PLACEWORKS 1-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Introduction
This document is an Initial Study for the De Anza Hotel Project (proposed project) prepared by the City of
Cupertino (City) to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment. This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations
sections 15000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15051, the City is the lead agency for the
proposed project.
The project site is located on a 1.29-acre site at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, approximately mid-way
between Homestead Road to the north of the site and Interstate 280 (I-280) to the south of the site. The
project site is currently developed with commercial land uses associated with the Goodyear Auto Service
Center (Goodyear Tire). The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing commercial building
and constructing a hotel with up to 156 rooms 1 with associated amenities including a conference/meeting
room and a restaurant. The project proposes both at-grade and below-grade parking spaces, and
associated landscaping. The project site is assigned Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 326-10-061. The site’s
General Plan land use designation is Commercial/Residential and the Zoning District is General
Commercial (CG) with special development regulations (rg), together referred to as CG-rg.2
In September 2015, the City adopted “General Plan Amendment Procedures” that allow project applicants
to apply for authorization to process a General Plan Amendment. Each application undergoes a
preliminary review to determine if the proposed project achieves the goals of the General Plan, amongst
other criteria. The City Council, at a publicly noticed meeting, authorizes the applications that satisfy the
required criteria to proceed with the General Plan amendment application.3 A General Plan Amendment
Authorization resolution was adopted by City Council that allowed the project applicant to make an
application for a General Plan Amendment to increase the hotel development allocation up to 156 rooms,
increase the allowable building height, and reduce the building plane setback requirements in the
Homestead Special Area and North De Anza Gateway.4 Accordingly, the project that is the subject of this
1 Note this Initial Study is based on a hotel project with up to 156 rooms; however, the final project may have slightly fewer
rooms.
2 City of Cupertino Ordinance 436 (not codified).
3 Procedures for Processing of General Plan Amendment Applications as listed in City of Cupertino Resolution Number 15-
078, Passed and Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on September 1, 2015.
4 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and
Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
290 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Initial Study includes an evaluation of these proposed amendments to the General Plan. For further
details on the project description, see Chapter 3 of this Initial Study.
1.1 INITIAL STUDY
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,5 an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental
analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining what form of environmental review is
required for a project. The CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description,
description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar
form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects,
evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing and applicable land use controls, and the name of
persons who prepared the study.
1.2 TIERING PROCESS
The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broader
program-level EIR, with subsequent focused or project-level environmental documents for individual
projects that implement the program. This Initial Study incorporates by reference the discussions in the
City’s General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in December 2014,6 and the
addendum to that EIR that was approved by the City Council in October 2015,7 together hereinafter
“General Plan EIR.” The analysis in this Initial Study concentrates on the project-specific issues pertaining
to the proposed De Anza Hotel project.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays
and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents
by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the program EIRs and by
incorporating those analyses by reference.
In order to determine whether the proposed project was part of the development that was examined in
the General Plan EIR, the following questions must be answered:
Is the proposed project included in the scope of the development projected and analyzed in the
General Plan EIR?
5 The CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title, 14, Section 15000 et seq.
6 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014.
7 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final
Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. October 2015.
CC 03-03-20
291 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Is the project site in an area that was considered for hotel land uses in the General Plan EIR?
Are the changes to population and employment associated with the proposed project included within
the scope of the projections accounted for in the General Plan EIR?
Is the proposed project within the scope of the cumulative analysis in the General Plan EIR?
Table 1-1 shows a comparison of the scope of the proposed project compared to the scope of the
evaluation included in the General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 1-1, the proposed project is well within the
scope of hotel development and building height limits analyzed in the General Plan EIR for the project site.
TABLE 1-1 SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE GENERAL PLAN EIR AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT
General Plan EIR Proposed Project
Project Site Study Area 1
(Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) At the site of Goodyear Tire
General Plan Land Use Commercial/Residential Commercial/Residential
Zoning Planned Development
General Commercial (P(CG))a
General Commercial with
special development regulation (CG-rg)
Proposed Project 250 hotel rooms with
conference facility
156 hotel rooms with
conference facilities
Maximum Height 145 feetb 82 feet and 8 inches at the top of bar roof
Employeesc 75c 78d
Notes:
a. The General Plan EIR evaluated a proposed change to the current zoning on the project site, which is General Commercial with
special development regulation (CG-rg); however, the zoning designation was not changed.
b. The General Plan EIR included a description of multiple height scenarios for the project site. These included 60 feet, 75 feet with retail, and 145 feet
with retail and community benefits. In the Aesthetics chapter of the General Plan EIR, the project site was evaluated at the maximum height.
c. The General Plan EIR applied 0.3 employees per hotel room (0.3 x 250 = 75 employees).
d. The City now assumes one job (employee) for every two hotel rooms (156 rooms/2 employees = 78 employees).
Source: PlaceWorks, Project Applicant, City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR
and Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014 and October 2015.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial/Residential, which allows
primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two. Hotel
uses are permitted in the Commercial/Residential land use designation.
The site is located in the North De Anza Gateway, which is within the Homestead Special Area.8 The
Homestead Special Area includes residential, commercial, office and hotel uses along Homestead Road,
between I-280 and the Sunnyvale city limit. The General Plan EIR evaluated designated gateways, which
represent key locations in the city that, with the use of design elements such as buildings, arches,
fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art, have the opportunity to create a
memorable impression of Cupertino. Development in the city’s gateways is required to have high-quality
8 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-1, Community Form Diagram, page
LU-18.
CC 03-03-20
292 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-4 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
buildings with architecture and materials to reflect the entrances to the city. The General Plan EIR
considered future development in the gateways that foster sustainable development practices including,
but not limited to, locating high-density residential and employment growth near major transportation
and transit corridors, concentrating development on infill sites, and promoting multi-modal (e.g., bike,
pedestrian, transit) transportation opportunities. The proposed project is a hotel with conference facilities
and a ground-floor restaurant and rooftop terrace, lounge and bar, which is consistent with the types of
development envisioned in the North De Anza Gateway.
The General Plan EIR evaluated a Zoning designation change to Planned Development General
Commercial (P(CG)) to be consistent with the Cupertino Hotel that is adjacent to the project site.
However, the site was not rezoned and the current Zoning designation for General Commercial with
special development regulation CG-rg applies to the site.
The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for new development that would bring approximately
12,998new residents 9 and 16,855 new jobs10 to the city within the 2040 plan horizon. These new
residents and jobs, combined with existing conditions, would result in 71,300 residents and 44,242 jobs at
the General Plan 2040 buildout horizon. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed by 2022. As
discussed in the General Plan EIR, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
Cupertino is projected to have 62,500 residents and 30,110 jobs by 2020 and 66,800 residents and 31,370
jobs by 2030. No new residents are projected due to the proposed project. Temporary construction-
related jobs and 78 permanent jobs are projected to be created by the 2022 buildout year. The City has
approved one new 122-room hotel as part of the Marina Plaza project since the certification of the
General Plan EIR. The City currently has an open application for the proposed 185-room Cupertino Village
Hotel project. Combined, these projects equal 307 hotel rooms. Therefore, the proposed project,
combined with the other hotels that are being considered, would not increase hotel development to
levels that would exceed the 1,339 new hotel rooms analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the
project’s proposed increase of temporary construction-related jobs and permanent jobs associated with
hotel projects, in combination with other hotel projects, would not increase development projections
related to hotel projects over the year 2020 or 2030 projections. Therefore, the project is within the
population and employment projections considered in the General Plan EIR.
Accordingly, this Initial Study tiers from the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152
(Public Resources Code Section 21094).
9 Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation
rate.
10 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by
300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs;
and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs.
CC 03-03-20
293 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview of the Initial Study document.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. A summary of the pertinent details for the proposed project, including lead
agency contact information, proposed project location, and General Plan and Zoning designations are in
this chapter. This chapter also summarizes the significant impacts that could occur from construction and
operation of the proposed project and identifies the mitigation measures recommended to reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the location and setting of the proposed project,
along with its principal components, as well as a description of the policy setting and implementation
process for the proposed project .
Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist, that was updated in December 2018, this chapter identifies and discusses anticipated impacts
from the proposed project, providing substantiation of the findings made.
Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter lists the impacts found to be
significant and identifies the recommended mitigation measures categorized by impact area.
Chapter 6: Organizations and Persons Consulted. This chapter presents a list of City, other agencies, and
consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Initial Study.
CC 03-03-20
294 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-6 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
CC 03-03-20
295 of 873
PLACEWORKS 2-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Executive Summary
2.1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: The De Anza Hotel Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
3. Contact Person and Phone
Number:
Gian Martire, Associate Planner
GianM@cupertino.org
408-777-3319
4. Project Location: 10931 North De Anza Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
5. Project Applicant’s Name and
Address:
De Anza Properties
960 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94703
6. General Plan Land Use
Designation:
Commercial/Residential
7. Zoning: General Commercial with special development regulation
(CG-rg)
8. Description of Project: See Project Description in Chapter 3
9. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting:
See page 1 of Chapter 3, Project Description
10. Other Public Agencies whose
Approval is Required:
See page 26 of Chapter 3, Project Description
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan
for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal
cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City has not received any
request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which they are traditionally and culturally
affiliated or otherwise to be notified about projects in Cupertino.
CC 03-03-20
296 of 873
CC 03-03-20
297 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
2.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Due to the location of the project site, the proposed project would have no impact on Agriculture,
Forestry or Mineral Resources; thus, these topics are not discussed in detail in the Initial Study. The
following lists the significant impacts by topic that could occur from construction and operation of the
proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.
All other topic areas were identified to have less than significant impacts. A detailed discussion of the
project’s impacts is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated by the proposed project during construction could
potentially result in significant regional short-term air quality impacts without implementation of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s best management practices related to reducing fugitive dust
emissions.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following best
management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as required
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2
feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the
trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of
the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
CC 03-03-20
298 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Impact AQ-2: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all equipment of 50
horsepower or more.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City
of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level 3
DPF emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of
Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all nonessential
idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air
Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate,
sensitive or special-status species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as
required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If construction
activities and any required tree removal are proposed to occur during the breeding season (February 1
and August 31), the construction contractor shall indicate, on all construction plans, that preconstruction
surveys shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction
activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction,
grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which
surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under
the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective
measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such
as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the
CC 03-03-20
299 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance
and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet
for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season
to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are
determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the
qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging
independently or the nest is no longer active.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in the recovery of the materials.
Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for tribal cultural resources,
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the resource to the
California Register of Historical Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also
include appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and appropriate
mitigations as follows:
• If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the
find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
• If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the consulting
archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the
resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or
mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project
design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures
(e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary, and at the discretion
of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
CC 03-03-20
300 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading,
demolition, and construction plans:
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or
building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved qualified
paleontologist to examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource,
and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an
excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource
important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
implementation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall offset a minimum of 173 metric tons metric tons of
carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year for a period of 30 years (5,190 MTCO2e) through
the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets (i.e., not compliance offsets) from the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) approved Offset Project Registries (i.e., Climate Action Reserve, Verra , American Carbon
Registry) or forecasted mitigation units (FMUs) (GHG Mitigation Credits) from the Climate Action
Reserve’s Climate Forward program. The voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs must be real, additional,
permanent, confirmable, and enforceable. The order of preference for purchase of voluntary carbon
offsets or FMUs shall be as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3)
within the State of California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Evidence of payments, and funding
of an escrow-type account or endowment fund shall be submitted to the City by the project applicant.
Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Cupertino
Building Division official or his/her designee, the necessary documentation to verify the agreement to
purchase the necessary voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs to offset project emissions to below 1,100
MTCO2e per year.
CC 03-03-20
301 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
NOISE
Impact NOISE-1: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the construction phase that would be in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or
federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all demolition, grading, and
construction plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall take
place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekends. In addition, the construction crew shall adhere to the following best management practices
shall be observed:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition or grading activities, all offsite
businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned activities.
The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the
hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification
should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are
assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to
the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance of
any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate
compliance with the 80 dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan,
including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the permit application drawing set
and as part of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the on-site Construction
Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following available controls to comply with the
80 dBA performance standard:
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s)
to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours,
as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized
contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate
corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction
will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-
design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the
maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting
temporary plywood noise barriers between areas where concrete saws will be used and nearby
sensitive receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the
noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.
CC 03-03-20
302 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-8 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
• During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from
sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
• During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will be conducted simultaneously to
the degree feasible in order to reduce the time periods of these operations.
• Select haul routes that avoid th e greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of
Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.
• Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along
queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other
equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing
signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The
construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level
based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human
spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the operation phase that would be in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or
federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on
surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at residential
uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses
(i.e., the Cupertino Hotel) during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant
shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise
reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements.
Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the
City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-
sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TRC-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse impact to an unknown Tribal
Cultural Resource.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
CC 03-03-20
303 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-9
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact UTIL-1: The proposed project may result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed De Anza Hotel
Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through
the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant may demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel would not exceed the
peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of
the following methods:
1) Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
2) Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of
the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce
sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
3) The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation
rates used by the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer
Coefficient table in the May 2007, City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment,11 and
California Green Building Standards, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by
the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the
satisfaction of the CSD.
11 Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
304 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-10 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
CC 03-03-20
305 of 873
PLACEWORKS 3-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Project Description
The applicant, De Anza Properties, is proposing the De Anza Hotel Project (proposed project) which would
involve the construction of a hotel on a 1.29-acre site. The project site is currently developed with
commercial land uses (Goodyear Tire). The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing
commercial building and redeveloping the site with a new seven-story hotel with up to 156 rooms, a
rooftop terrace, lounge, and bar and ground-floor conference facilities and restaurant. The proposed
project would include four levels of below-grade parking. This chapter provides a detailed description of
the proposed project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, the principal
project features, construction phasing and schedule, as well as a list of the required permits and
approvals.
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
As shown on Figure 3-1, the project site is located in Cupertino, which is in the northwestern portion of
Santa Clara County. Cupertino is roughly 45 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles west of downtown
San Jose. Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access to the project site.
3.1.2 LOCAL SETTING
The project site is located at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard. The site is located on the eastern side of the
Homestead Square Shopping Center (Homestead Square), which offers retail and restaurants for nearby
workers and serves as a village center for the residential uses in this area. As shown on Figure 3-2, the
project site is bounded by Homestead Square buildings and parking lots to the north and west, North De
Anza Boulevard to the east, and Cupertino Hotel to the south. The Cupertino Hotel is a full service,
boutique, business hotel with event facilities and 125 rooms.
The project is separated from the Homestead Square Shopping Center to the west by an approximately
20-foot (two-lanes) wide internal roadway, from the Commercial/Retail building to the north by an
approximately 40-foot (three-lanes) wide driveway, from the Aviare Apartments to the east by North De
Anza Boulevard, which is approximately 150 feet (six-lanes) wide including the landscaped median, and
from Cupertino Hotel building to the south by an approximately 34-foot (two-lane) wide driveway.12
12 The existing driveways off North De Anza Boulevard meet three-car width standard required by the CG-rg Zoning code.
CC 03-03-20
306 of 873
Figure 3-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2019.
0 0.15 0.30.075
Miles
P
San
Francisco
Bay
%&'(280
%&'(880 %&'(680
San Jose
Hayward
Cupertino
(/101
Milpitas
Palo
Alto
|ÿ17 (/101
Santa
Cruz
Gilroy
PROJECT SITE
%&'(280
City of Sunnyvale
City of Cupertino
Project Site
Cupertino City Limit
Stevens Creek BlvdNorth De Anza BlvdSunnyvale Saratoga RdNorth Stelling RdHomestead Rd Homestead Rd
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
307 of 873
Source: Google Earth Professional, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2018.
Figure 3-2
Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings
0
Scale (Feet)
700
Junipero Serra Freeway
Cupertino
Hotel
Aviare
Apartments
Villa Camino Apartments
Homestead Square
Shopping Center
Public Storage
E. Homestead Road
N. De Anza BoulevardApple, Inc.
Project Site
PLACEWORKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CC 03-03-20
308 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The nearest residential development to the project site is the Aviare Apartments approximately 150 feet
to the east of the project across North De Anza Boulevard. The closest neighborhood park is Franco Park
approximately 0.5 miles to the west. The Nimitz and Louis E. Stocklmier Elementary Schools are located
about 1 mile to the north, the Homestead High School and Cupertino Middle School are located
approximately 0.75 miles and 1.5 miles to the west respectively, and the Saint Joseph Cupertino School
and William Faria Elementary School are located approximately 0.8 miles and 1.6 miles to the south
respectively. The closest major regional employer (Apple Park) is located about 0.25 miles to the south.
The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 6 miles to the northeast, and
Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.3 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers
Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately
5.6 miles to the southeast.
3.1.3 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
SITE CHARACTER
As shown on Figure 3-3, the site is currently developed with an 8,323 square-foot building that is one
story (approximately 18 feet) tall. The existing building is currently occupied with a Goodyear Tire, which
provides new tires, tire repairs, oil changes, and other automotive care services and provides about 10
jobs.13 The site also contains surface parking.
The site supported agricultural land uses between 1939 to 1968 and there is a potential that agricultural
chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, were used on site. The existing building was built
in 1971 and 1972. Due to the age of the existing buildings, they may contain asbestos-containing materials
or lead-based paint, which have been regulated in construction since the early 1970’s.14 The project site
was developed in 1971, which is within the 45-year age limit established by the State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) for buildings that may be of historical value.15
13 Personal communication between PlaceWorks and Goodyear Auto Service Center on January 9, 2019.
14 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
15 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
CC 03-03-20
309 of 873
0
Scale (Feet)
200Source: Google Earth Professional, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2018.
Figure 3-3
Existing Condition
Project Site
Junipero Serra Freeway N. De Anza BoulevardE. Homestead Road
Aviare
Apartments
Cupertino
Hotel
Ultra BeautySafeway
Rite Aid
Star One
Credit
Union
PLACEWORKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CC 03-03-20
310 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
VEGETATION AND LANDCOVER
Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)16
habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife
habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas
and parks, and intensive human disturbance. According to the Vegetation Map shown in the
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the General Plan most of the City, including the
project site, is within the urban forest.17 The City recognizes that every tree on both public and private
property is an important part of Cupertino's urban forest and contributes significant economic,
environmental and aesthetic benefits of the community.18 The site contains ornamental landscaping for
the existing and surrounding commercial spaces, including 11 trees, of which six are located along North
De Anza Boulevard. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special-status
plant or animal species on the project site or urbanized areas within a 1-mile area surrounding the project
site. There are no natural lands within a 1-mile area of the project site.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Projection (CAL FIRE) has designated the project site as a
Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (NVHFHSZ). The project site is
not near lands that CAL FIRE designates as State Responsibility Area (SRA). The nearest Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in a designated SRA and LRA is a VHFHSZ about 5 miles south where the Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve interfaces with the urban edge.19 Land between the edge of the FHSZ and the
project site is dense urban development.
The site is generally flat with an average elevation of 213 feet above mean sea level and the depth of
groundwater is estimated to be 125 feet below ground surface or deeper. The soil is Urban Land Flaskan
Complex, which is a well-drained sandy loam, sandy clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam and very gravelly
sandy clay loam soil with a depth of 59 inches.20 Surficial geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary
16 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify
California’s existing vegetation communities for use in Statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification
on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous.
17 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability
Element, Figure ES-1.
18 City of Cupertino, Tree Protection and Tree Removal link on the City’s website, Accessed May 6, 2019 at
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/residential-development/tree-protection-
tree-removal.
19 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP).
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in SRA and LRA. FHSZ Viewer.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps
20 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
311 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
alluvium,21 which is described as Holocene-age younger alluvium and coarse-grained alluvium that are
composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt, sand, and clay and organic matter.
The existing impervious surface totals 38,380 square feet. Stormwater from the site would drain to a
network of City-maintained storm drains that collect runoff from city streets and carries it to the creeks
that run through Cupertino and to the San Francisco Bay.
The current on-site utilities are a natural gas heating system and electric cooling system.22
The surrounding uses are the one-story (approximately 30 feet) buildings in the Homestead Square
shopping center to the north and west, the three-story (approximately 45 feet) Aviare Apartments to the
east, and the four-story (approximately 45 feet) Cupertino Hotel to the south.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY PROVIDERS
The following service providers would serve the proposed project:
The City contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection, emergency,
medical, and hazardous materials services.
The City contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West Valley Patrol
Division for police protection services.
The site is in the Cupertino Union School District.
The Santa Clara County Library District governs and administers seven community libraries, one
branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24/7 online library. The closest
library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in Cupertino.
The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services is responsible for the maintenance of the
City’s 14 parks and seven community and recreational facilities within the city boundary.
The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District
(LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project.
The project site is located within the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) service area and wastewater
would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP).
21 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San
Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K.
Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth.
22 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
312 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The City has contracts with Recology South Bay (Recology) and Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL).
Recology would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard waste services to the
project site and haul waste to the NISL.23
Electricity and natural gas would be supplied to the project site via infrastructure maintained by
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be
available from a number of providers, including Comcast.
3.1.4 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
The project site is assigned APN 326-10-061. In addition to the General Plan land use designation, the
project site is located in a special planning area and designated gateway within the city. A description of
the planning area and development parameters is provided below.
Planning Area and Gateway
The site is located in the North De Anza Gateway, which is within the Homestead Special Area.24 The
Homestead Special Area includes residential, commercial, office and hotel uses along Homestead Road,
between I-280 and the Sunnyvale city limit. In addition to the project site, the North De Anza Gateway
includes one other hotel (Cupertino Hotel). According to the General Plan, the Homestead Special Area
will continue to be a predominantly mixed-use retail commercial area with residential uses and
neighborhood centers providing services to local residents. Bike and pedestrian improvements to the
roadways in this area will provide better connections for residents and workers to access services. Tree-
lined streets and sidewalks will provide an inviting environment and will link existing and new uses.
Building Height
As shown on the Community Form Diagram in the General Plan, a maximum height of 45 feet is allowed at
this location.25 The adopted General Plan Amendment Authorization resolution allows the project
23 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling Services Fact Sheet,
http://www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuideCupertino.pdf, accessed May 7, 2019.
24 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-1, Community Form Diagram,
page LU-18.
25 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-1, Community Form Diagram1,
page LU-18.
CC 03-03-20
313 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-9
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
applicant to apply for a General Plan Amendment to increase the height.26 The project features for the
General Plan Amendment are discussed below in Section 3.2, Project Components.
Land Use Designation
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial/Residential, which allows
primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two.
Commercial use is defined in the General Plan as retail sales, businesses, limited professional offices, and
service establishments with direct contact with customers. Commercial uses can range from
neighborhood convenience to regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a nuisance
to adjoining neighborhoods or harmful to the community identity would be regulated by the Commercial
Zoning Ordinance and use permit procedures.27
ZONING DISTRICT
The project site is within the General Commercial (CG) with special development regulations (rg), together
referred to as CG-rg.28 As described in Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 19.60.010, the CG zoning
district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city to
establish retailing, offices, and service establishments that ensure the maximum compatibility with
surrounding residential areas. Development in this Zoning District provides goods and services to the
general public, while minimizing adverse traffic impacts resulting from commercial development.29 The
special development regulation applies to three parcels in the city. Ordinance 436 requires a driveway
equal to the width of three cars (e.g., three 10-foot travel lanes would equal a 30-foot driveway) to serve
the project site and Homestead Shopping Center.30 Hotel uses are allowed in the CG-rg Zoning District
with a Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission pursuant to CMC Section 19.60.030.31
However, the adopted General Plan Amendment Authorization resolution allows the project applicant to
apply for a General Plan Amendment to increase the hotel development allocation on the site;32
therefore, the project must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. The project features for the
General Plan Amendment are discussed below in Section 3.2, Project Components.
26 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and
Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
27 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Appendix A, Land Use Definitions, pages A-5 and A-6.
28 City of Cupertino Ordinance 436 (not codified).
29 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.010, Purpose.
30 City of Cupertino Ordinance 436 (not codified).
31 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.030, Permitted,
Conditional, and Excluded Uses. Table 19.60.030: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning
Districts.
32 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and
Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
314 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
SETBACKS
Development on the site would be required to provide sufficient space for adequate light, air and visibility
at intersections, and general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot or parcels.
However, pursuant to CMC Section 19.60.060, because the project site does not abut any residential or
agricultural zones, no specific front, side, or rear yard setbacks are required.33 Nonetheless, the
development on the project site must still adhere to the General Plan requirement of maintaining the
building plane setback requirements whereas the primary bulk of the building is behind a 1:1 slope line
(i.e., 1 foot of setback for every 1 foot of building height) from the face of the curb along North De Anza
Boulevard.34 The adopted General Plan Amendment Authorization resolution allows the project applicant
to apply for a General Plan Amendment to reduce the building plane setback requirements in the
Homestead Special Area and North De Anza Gateway.35 The project features for the General Plan
Amendment are discussed below in Section 3.2, Project Components.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA
Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS) that was adopted jointly by the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) and
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on July 26, 2017. As part of the implementing framework
for Plan Bay Area, local governments identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs
are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching
goal of the regional Plan Bay Area 2040 is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing
services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial
transportation investments would be necessary to maximize energy conservation and achieve the per
capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled (also referred to as “VMT”), and associated greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions reductions.
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station
Areas PDA. While the project is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and
bicycle and pedestrian routes, it is not a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA).36 See Section 4.1,
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, for more discussion on TPAs.
33 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.060,
Development Standards. Table 19.60.060: Development Standards.
34 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-1, Community Form Diagram,
page LU-18.
35 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and
Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
36 Plan Bay Area, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority
Development Area (PDA) and Transit Priority Area (TPA) Map for CEQA Streamlining, https://www.planbayarea.org/pda-tpa-map,
accessed on January 4, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
315 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-11
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
3.1.5 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
LANDSCAPING
Landscape Ordinance
CMC Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general, any
building or landscape project that involves more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area is required to
submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for approval. Existing
and established landscaped areas over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to submit water budget
calculations and audits of established landscapes.37
Tree Ordinances
CMC Chapter 14.12, Trees, establishes regulations for the planting, care, and maintenance of public trees,
and provides for the continuous maintenance of the public trees, with the goal of encouraging
preservation of trees. The City funds the planting and maintenance of public trees through payment of
reimbursement costs as a conditions of building permit issuance.38
CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Tree Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and
maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. Removal of a protected tree requires a permit from the
City. “Protected” trees include trees of a certain species and size in all zoning districts; heritage trees in all
zoning districts; any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development
application, building permit, tree removal permit, or code enforcement action in all zoning districts; and
approved privacy protection planting in single-family residential (R-1) zoning districts. Because the existing
development is on property that requires a development application, all existing trees on the site are
considered protected.39
UTILITIES AND ENERGY
Energy
The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as
part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) to apply to the
planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or
37 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance.
38 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.12, Trees.
39 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees.
CC 03-03-20
316 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
structure, unless otherwise indicated in the code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen
established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess
of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation requiring new buildings to reduce water
consumption by 20 percent, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The local building
permit process enforces the building efficiency standards. CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards
Code Adopted, includes the CALGreen requirements with local amendments for projects in the city. The
City’s Green Building Ordinance codifies green building techniques, including measures affecting water
use efficiency and water conservation. CMC sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 sets forth the
standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in CMC Section
16.58.220, non-residential new construction exceeding 50,000 square feet is required to be Silver in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).40 CMC Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an
alternate green building standard for a project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in CMC Section
16.58.220 that meet the same intent of conserving resources and reducing solid waste.
Solid Waste Reduction
Consistent with CALGreen, CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Division of Construction and Demolition
Waste, requires that a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition debris
must be recycled or salvaged and that all applicants have a waste management plan for on-site sorting of
construction debris. Additionally, in December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.41 According to
the Zero Waste Policy, the City would require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement,
steadfast and ongoing efforts by the City’s franchise to maintain a minimum residential and commercial
waste diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025.
Water Quality
CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and
gives legal effect to the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit (MRP) issued to the City. This chapter also ensures ongoing compliance with the most
recent version of the City’s MRP regarding municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements. This
chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any private, public, developed,
and undeveloped lands within the city. The CMC contains permit requirements for construction projects
and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff.
40 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class
building strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to
landfills. LEED certified buildings are ranked in order of efficiency from Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum being the highest
ranking with the greatest efficiency standard. LEED Silver certified buildings typically reduce is the third highest ranking out of the
four, with just being certified being the lowest and Gold and Platinum being the second highest.
41 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
317 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a hotel and associated amenities with
subterranean parking. The following provides a detailed description of the key project components. A
complete set of preliminary site plans are available on the City’s website at
www.cupertino.org/deanzahotel and at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
HOTEL
The conceptual site plan for the proposed project is shown on Figure 3-4. The proposed project would
develop a seven-story hotel with up to 156 guest rooms and a rooftop terrace, lounge, and bar. The
first/ground floor would be for guest amenities, which could include a lobby, reception area, exercise
room, restaurant/bar, kitchen, conference rooms, and restrooms. The first floor would also include space
for an administrative office, employee lounge, housekeeping, electrical, mechanical, trash/recycling, and
storage. The second floor would have guest rooms and guest facilities, which could include lounge areas
and outdoor terraces. One of the second-floor terraces would have a green roof. The third through the
sixth floors would have guest rooms and lounge areas. Each floor with hotel rooms would include space
for electrical, mechanical, trash/recycling, housekeeping, and storage.
The ground-floor restaurant, bar, and kitchen would be approximately 4,200 square feet. The ground-floor
conference space, approximately 4,300 square feet, would be provided in two rooms. The rooftop terrace,
lounge, and bar would occupy an approximately 5,200-square-feet portion of the rooftop. The restaurant,
bar, and conference facilities on the ground floor and the rooftop terrace, lounge and bar would be open
to hotel guests and non-hotel customers. Guest rooms would include king, queen, and double rooms, and
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See Figures 3-5 through 3-7.
The proposed project would include solar panels, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
equipment, commonly referred to as “HVAC ” systems, on the roof level. The HVAC system would be
shielded from view by a six-foot metal rooftop panel (see Figure 3-8). The main vehicular parking area
would be provided on four subterranean levels. At-grade parking spaces would be located near the drop-
off/check-in area. ADA-compliant parking would be available above and below ground. A loading zone is
proposed on the north side of the building away from the primary access point. The proposed project
would include a valet service for hotel and restaurant guests. Class 1 bicycle parking spaces (bicycle lockers
or secure rooms) would be provided in the subterranean parking levels. Class 2 bicycle parking spaces
(publicly accessible bicycle racks) would be available for guests and employees near the main entrance.
The main housekeeping services/storage area would be on the fourth level of the subterranean parking
facility.
CC 03-03-20
318 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The hotel would have a FAR (Floor Area Ratio)42 of 2.5. As shown in Figures 3-9 and 3-10, the building
would have a maximum height of 70 feet and 8 inches at the roofline, and a maximum height of 88 feet
for the rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures. The proposed project would have slope line
(setback height) that would range from 0.18:1 to 0.22:1 from the face of the curb on North De Anza
Boulevard.43 The proposed project would have balconies at each of the stories that overhang into the
public right of way. Separate encroachment permits and agreements would be necessary to allow these
encroachments, if approved by the City.
The operation of the proposed hotel would generate 78 jobs.44 According to the project applicant, a
maximum of 20 employees would be on site at a time. With an average of two guests per hotel room, the
hotel would generate up to 312 guests at maximum capacity. The hotel conference rooms would
accommodate up to approximately 700 attendees depending on the type of event (e.g., banquet or
lecture).
CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
VEHICULAR, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
As shown on Figure 3-4, vehicular and bicycle access to the project site would be provided via two limited-
access (right-turn only) driveways located on North De Anza Boulevard: one located at the northern end
of the project site and one located at the southern end of the project site. Both driveways would provide
access to the passenger drop-off/pick-up area adjacent to the hotel lobby entrance on the south side of
the proposed hotel, as well as to the underground parking garage.
Both project driveways would also continue to serve the existing Homestead Square Shopping Center. The
driveway widths at De Anza Boulevard would be 30 feet wide at the south access point and 32 feet and 4
inches wide at the north access point. Emergency vehicles would continue to access the site in much the
same way it is accessed today. While the SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division would coordinate
the review of building permits for precise final measurements, the preliminary plans have been designed
to meet the turning radius requirements for emergency vehicles.
A striped bike lane currently exists along North De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Homestead Road. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane
markings, pavement legends, and signage.
42 The floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot to the area of the lot. A hotel
development does not have a FAR limit for the Commercial/Retail General Plan Land Use designation or General Commercial
with special development regulations (CG-rg) Zoning District.
43 The primary building bulk is below a 1:1 slope line (i.e., 1 foot of setback for every 1 foot of building height.)
44 Assumes one job (employee) for every two hotel rooms (156 rooms/2 employees = 78 employees). Note that the City now
applies a different standard for determining employees than was used for the General Plan EIR, which was 0.3 employees per
hotel room (0.3 x 250 = 75 employees).
CC 03-03-20
319 of 873
Figure 3-4
Conceptual Site Plan
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
221' - 4"127' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 9 1/2"
0° 13' 00"
121.90'
N W 89° 47' 00"21.99'SW0° 13' 00"
186.72'
N W
89° 47' 00"191.75'NE0° 02' 49"
308.62'
S W89° 47' 00"168.34'SWDE ANZA BOULEVARD
5 6 7 8 9 10
40' - 0"LOADING ZONENO PARKINGFH
FH
5' - 9"
5' - 4"9' - 0"32'-6"/-20'-2"+/-9' - 4"5' - 0"32'-6"+/-
226' - 0"
CUPERTINO
HOTEL
26' - 1"4 11
SHOPPING
CENTER
RETAIL
RETAIL
NEW
HOTEL
DECORATIVE
PAVING AT
ENTRY DRIVE
(E) DRIVEWAY,
AC PAVING
6th FLOOR WALL
LINE BELOW
TERRACE ON 2nd
STORY BELOW
GREEN ROOF ON
2nd STORY BELOW
MECH EQUIP
SCREEN WALL
ELEVATORS
1 & 2 ROOF
STAIR 1
ROOF
BAR
ROOF
HOUSE
KEEPING
ELEVATOR
ROOF
DEDICATION
LINE
ROOF TERRACE
MECH EQUIP
SCREEN WALL
6th FLOOR ROOF
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1" = 20'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:52:47 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A1.00
Site PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date Description
Source: Winkleman Designs, 2019.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
320 of 873
Figure 3-5
First Floor Plan
UP
UP
UP
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
GARAGE
RAMP
DOWN
STAIR 1
25' - 8"
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
2259SF
1983SF
CORRIDOR
CONFERENCE
TOTAL = 4242SF
OFFICE
BELL/BAG/VALET
TRASH KITCHEN
PRE-FUNCTION 2
CHECK-IN
EL1 EL2 EL314' - 7 1/2"PRE-FUNCTION 1
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
36' - 10"
WOMEN
944SF
CONFERENCE 1EXERCISE
PRE-FUNCTION 3
CONFERENCE 2
LOBBY
PORTE COCHERE MEN
127' - 0"1
13' - 6"5' - 0"11' - 6"7' - 8 3/4"STOR
ART
GARAGE
MECHANICAL
ROOM ABOVE
3' - 6"EXHAUST
100' - 3"46' - 6"51' - 0 3/4"39' - 7 3/4"31' - 0"20' - 9"31' - 3"38' - 4 1/2"15' - 6"25' - 6"37' - 1 3/4"
27' - 3 1/2"29' - 7 1/2"8' - 0"
21' - 8"
13' - 3 1/2"19' - 4 1/2"8' - 9"DE ANZA TERRACE
RESTAURANT AND BAR
21' - 6"29'-7"+/-VEST
2256SF
1983SF
0' - 0"11' - 3"5' - 1"18' - 5"
2' - 0"8' - 3 1/2"4CY 4CY 4CY
18' - 0"
15' - 6"7' - 10"
11' - 2"9' - 4"10' - 2"22' - 6"
TABLES
TABLES
PLANTER
SERVICE
RECEPTION BAR
226' - 0"
48'-2"+/-23'-0".15' - 0"12'-4".78
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
0
Scale (Feet)
32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
321 of 873
Figure 3-6
Second Floor Plan
UPUP
UP
A5.00
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
14' - 2 1/2"14' - 2 1/2"6' - 0"201202203
220
221
219
223222
224
225
226227228
213212
211
210
209
208
207
206 205 204 7' - 0"214
215 216 217 218
6' - 0"11' - 2"LOBBY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
14' - 2 1/2"13' - 9 1/2"14' - 0 1/2"7' - 0"13' - 11 1/2"30' - 9 1/2"29' - 11 1/2"46' - 4 3/4"36' - 5 1/2"7' - 0"11' - 2 1/2"
14' - 4 3/4"32' - 0"32' - 0"
GREEN ROOF
PATIO
229
14' - 6"
14' - 5 3/4"14' - 10 1/2"
23015' - 3"36' - 4"66' - 7 1/4"94' - 0 3/4"65' - 4"
TERRACE
26' - 6 1/2"
12' - 0"
7' - 0"
ELEC
LOUNGE 7' - 0"1' - 4"HK 8' - 0"BALCONYBALCONY, TYP
EL2EL1
231
LOUNGE
STORAGE 23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"13' - 3 1/4"15' - 4"12' - 0"28' - 0"124' - 0"51' - 0"
14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6"14' - 6"
17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"
14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"
13' - 3 3/4"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
111' - 0"111' - 0"26' - 10 1/2"31' - 7 1/4"4' - 11"10' - 10"4' - 10"14' - 2"14' - 1"
16' - 0"15' - 1"
14' - 0"
14' - 5 3/4"
14' - 6 1/2"2' - 0"9' - 0"21' - 8"12' - 8"5' - 4"11' - 6"2' - 8"11' - 6"5' - 4"11' - 6"2' - 8"9' - 0"5' - 4 1/2"14' - 9 1/2"1' - 8 1/4"2' - 3"7' - 0"
1 5' - 1"5' - 9"5' - 1"1' - 3"5' - 3"
27' - 4"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"9' - 1 1/32"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 8"
5'-4".4'-4".7' - 4 3/256"
1702sf
3635sf - Terrace
1702sf - Green Roof
653sf - Planters
418sf - Planters (C3)
16' - 6"
ACCESS HATCH FROM
MECH MEZZANINE BELOW
RUNOFF FILTRATION
PLANTER
RUNOFF FILTRATION
PLANTER
PLANTER, TYP
PLANTER, TYP
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF WITH
INTEGRAL GUTTER
15' - 6"
16' - 3"
11' - 2"9' - 4"10' - 2"DEDICATION LINE 6"
INBOARD FROM
SIDEWALK
EASEMENT LINE
BELOW, SCD 1'-10"+/-3'-6"+/-226' - 0"127' - 0"6' - 8"6'-8".6' - 8"8' - 0"6'-8".All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
No. Date Description
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
0
Scale (Feet)
32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
322 of 873
Figure 3-7
Third Floor Plan
UP
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
1
A5.11c
A5.01C 1
A5.00C
2
1
A5.13c6' - 0"10' - 4"
23' - 6"23' - 6"
301302303
320
321
319
323322
324
325
326327328
313312
311
310
309
308
307
306 305 304
314
315 316 317 318
LOBBY
329330331
STAIR 1
HK ELEV
ELEC
LOUNGE HK
EL
2
EL
1
LOUNGE
STORAGE
STAIR 2
DEDICATION LINE 6" INBOARD FROM SIDEWALK EASEMENT
LINE BELOW1'-7"+/-4' - 6 1/4"BALCONY, TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
4th, 5th and 6th FLOORS SIMILAR
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
0
Scale (Feet)
32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
323 of 873
Figure 3-8
Roof Plan
A5.012
A5.00
2
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
EL2
STAIR 1
MECH
EQUIP
METAL PANEL
SCREEN WALL
PV PANELS
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING WITH INTEGRAL GUTTER, 4:12 PITCH, TYP UON
PVC SINGLE PLY ROOFING, TYP AT
LOW SLOPE ROOFS
HK ELEV
STAIR 2
EXHAUST
15' - 6"10' - 2"WINE TASTING
62' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 6"PREP BAR
LOUNGE
RR
RR 11' - 4"FOYER 21' - 10"ROOF
TERRACE
ELEV
LOBBY
2903sf
1225sf
ROOF LINE
ABOVE
DEDICATION LINE 6" INBOARD
FROM SIDEWALK EASEMENT LINE BELOW5'-8"+/-4'-10"+/-3'-6"+/-2'-8"+/-5' - 10"5' - 2"
ELEC BAR
STORAGE
BALCONY
WINE
STOR
248sf
63' - 0"
58
24 8
TRANSOM WINDOWS
ABOVE, SEE ELEVATIONS
TRANSOM WINDOWS ABOVE, SEE ELEVATIONS
TEMP GL TO 6'AFF ABOVE 2'-6" HIGH CONC WALL, TYP
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
0
Scale (Feet)
32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
324 of 873
2nd18' - 0"
3rd28' - 2"
4th38' - 4"
5th48' - 6"
1
A5.13
7' - 4"10' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"18' - 0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Stair Roof80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
Roof70' - 8"
Elevator Roof88' - 0"
BFC
GL1
SC
M5
M1
SSR
BFC GL3
GL1GL1M3
GL1
GL1
BFC
GL2
GL1GL1
STR
6th58' - 8"
M1
M1
M1
GL2
GL3
M3M3
SC
BFC
M1
M3M3M3
M1
GL3GL3
METAL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
M1
Bar Roof82' - 8"
GL3GL3
GL1GL1 GL1
GL1 GL1 GL1
GL3
GL1
METAL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
1st0' - 0"
2nd18' - 0"
3rd28' - 2"
4th38' - 4"
5th48' - 6"
1
A5.13
123456789
18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"Stair Roof80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
Roof70' - 8"
Elevator Roof88' - 0"
M4
M3 M3
GL1MP1GL1BFCGL3 GL1 M3 M3 M1 GL1
GL2
MP2
GL3
BFC
BFC
7'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
GL1
GL1
GL2BFC [980]32' - 2"[224]7' - 4"6th58' - 8"
M4
M1
BFC
M3 M2M2M3M3
BFC
M2 M2
Bar Roof82' - 8"
BFC
GL2 BFC
GL3 GL3 GL3
GL3GL3
SC
5'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
Figure 3-9
West and East Elevations
West
East
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
325 of 873
1st0' - 0"
2nd18' - 0"
3rd28' - 2"
4th38' - 4"
5th48' - 6"
ABCDEF1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
Stair Roof80' - 8"
1
A5.11c
Roof70' - 8"
Elevator Roof88' - 0"
M3
BFC
M3 BFC GL2M3M2M2
GL1
GL1
GL2BFC
M5
GL1
BFC
BFC
6th58' - 8"
M2
SSR
GL3 GL3
SC
SC
BFC
M1
M1
M5
M1
Bar Roof82' - 8"
BFC
GL2
SC
GL1
GL1
GL1
BFC
1st0' - 0"
2nd18' - 0"
3rd28' - 2"
4th38' - 4"
5th48' - 6"
A B C D E F1
A5.12
1
A5.111
A5.10
Stair Roof80' - 8"
1
A5.11c
Roof70' - 8"
Elevator Roof88' - 0"
BFC
BFC
M2
GL1
M1
M5
SSR
M5
M3
7'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
6th58' - 8"
M2M2M3
M1 BFC SC
SC
SSR
SC
M1
M1
GL1
M2
BFC
Bar Roof82' - 8"
GL1GL1GL1GL1GL1GL1
GL1
GL3
M3M3 M1M1
M1
M1 BFC
5'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
GL2
GL2
GL1
CLEAR
GLASS
BLOCK, TYP
M2
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
No. Date Description
Source: Winkleman Design, 2019.
Figure 3-10
North and South Elevations
North
South
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
CC 03-03-20
326 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Pedestrian entrances into the hotel would be located on the north, east, and south sides of the building. A
walkway that connects to the North De Anza Boulevard sidewalk surrounds the project site for protected
pedestrian access. Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at
signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along both sides of North De
Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site.
Pedestrians can also access the project site via the parking lot of the adjacent Homestead Square
Shopping Center.
TRANSIT
Transit services are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrain. Access
to the existing bus service (Local Bus Routes 55 and 81) is provided via bus stops located near the
southwestern, southeastern, and northwestern corners of the North De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road
intersection, approximately a two-minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site. Local Route
55 provides transit service from De Anza College to Great America Parkway between 5:38 a.m. and 10:54
p.m., with 15- to 35-minute headways. Local Route 81 provides transit service from Moffett Field/Ames
Center to San Jose State University between 6:06 a.m. and 9:04 p.m., with 25- to 35-minute headways.
Caltrain is a commuter heavy rail service that runs from downtown San Francisco (4th and King Streets) to
downtown San Jose (Diridon Station), with a limited number of commute period trains running farther
south to Gilroy. The nearest station to the project site is the Sunnyvale Station, which is located on West
Evelyn Avenue approximately 3 miles north of the project site.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The proposed project would incorporate a transportation demand management (TDM) program in the
form of a dedicated shuttle program for hotel employees and guests. The shuttle destinations would be
determined based on hotel employee and guest needs. The hotel shuttle would offset transportation
related GHG emissions and to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. This measure is proposed by the
project applicant and is included in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants dated May 16, 2019 and included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The
proposed hotel would be responsible for ensuring that the TDM trip reduction measure is implemented. A
designated on-site TDM coordinator would be responsible for implementing the ongoing TDM measure
and reporting progress to the City of Cupertino annually.
LANDSCAPING
The proposed project would result in approximately 2,100 square feet of pervious landscaped surfaces.
The project site would include landscaping that surrounds the hotel structure (see Figure 3-4 above). All
11 existing trees would remain as part of the project and 14 new trees would be added for a total of 25
trees. The proposed landscaping would be consistent with the surrounding landscape and would include
native and/or adaptive, and drought resistant plant materials of similar water use grouped by hydrozones.
CC 03-03-20
327 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-23
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The majority of plantings would be drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees that, once established, are
adapted to a dry summer and intermittent rain in the winter season. As stated above in Section 1.1.4.2,
Zoning, the project is required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal for approval by the City.
LIGHT AND GLARE
The source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would generally be provided for the
purpose of orienting site users and for safety needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination
and shielded to reduce light spill or glare into surrounding buildings. There would be no up-lighting on the
building exterior. In landscaped and paved areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from a
public viewpoint. Energy conservation measures would be used as part of interior lighting for the new
building, such as employing automatic sensors to turn off lights when guests are not present in guest
rooms. The HVAC system would be shielded from view by a six-foot metal rooftop panel (see Figure 3-8).
The proposed project would not include reflective glass. Where glass features are considered, glazing
treatments will vary and none of the exterior glass would have a light reflectance value of more than 15
percent. The second-floor balconies and the roof top area would include railing elements, which would
have UV coatings, frosting, and fritting, which reduces glare and makes the glass visible to birds to reduce
collisions.
UTILITIES
The proposed utility infrastructure uses existing connections to the water, sewer, storm drain system,
natural gas and electricity network in the area, and would be served by an existing solid waste landfill.
WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION
The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban District
(LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. The proposed project would
connect to existing water lines along North De Anza Boulevard.
The project incorporates a number of features meant to conserve water used for on-site irrigation. The
irrigation water on the site would be dual-sourced recycled water and potable water as available from the
LASD. Any lawn areas would can use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated as
required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen
Building Standards which, as described in Section 1.1.4.2, Zoning, requires water conservation and
requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
The project site is located within the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) service area and wastewater would
be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). The project would use
existing connections to the sanitary sewer system on North De Anza Boulevard and a sewer easement
from the Homestead Square Shopping Center through the project site; therefore, no new connections
CC 03-03-20
328 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-24 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
would be needed and are not proposed as part of the project. The proposed project includes upsizing
existing 6-inch sewer line to 8 inches.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces from 38,380
square feet to 49,918 square feet. The project would comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces,
measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and
agreements to ensure maintenance of the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities in perpetuity.
Additionally, the project would comply with CMC Chapter 9.18 described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning,
which is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the NPDES permit
issued to the City. Existing connections to the storm drain line on North De Anza Boulevard and
Homestead Square Shopping Center are not expected to change; however, the proposed project would
provide several bioretention water treatment areas at ground level, as raised flow-through planters, and
drainage management areas on the project site. When combined, the on-site water treatment areas
would meet the required treatment areas of 1,997 square feet.
SOLID WASTE SERVICES
Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and landscaping
waste service to the hotel.45 All non-hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise
agreement is taken to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill for processing. Under the agreement between the
City and Recology, Recology also handles recyclable materials (at no cost to customers). The proposed
waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting.
OTHER UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC, AND CABLE)
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would supply natural gas and electricity infrastructure to the project site. The
source of electricity would be provided through a partnership of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and
PG&E, which provides a standard electricity offering from a 50 percent renewable portfolio.46 SVCE also
offers a 100 percent renewable option that electricity customers can opt into. Additionally, the proposed
development would achieve LEED Silver, or Alternative Reference Standard, consistent with the City’s
requirements. Sustainability features such as environmentally preferable building products and
photovoltaic generation system (commonly referred to as a PV system or solar panels) are proposed on
the rooftop (see Figure 3-8). AT&T and other providers would provide telephone service. Cable television
service would be available from a number of providers, including Comcast.
45 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed on January 16, 2019.
46 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. 2019. Your Choices. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/, accessed on May 2, 2019 at
CC 03-03-20
329 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-25
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Demolition and construction would take place over a 2-year period, which is anticipated to begin in
August 2020 and end in 2022, subject to regulatory approval.47
DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION
The proposed project would demolish the
existing 8,323-square-foot building and 17,700
square feet of paved surfaces. No existing trees
would be removed.
Table 3-1 shows the construction phase and the
length of time estimated to complete each phase.
Equipment that will likely be used for demolition
and site preparation would include a combination
of concrete/industrial saws, rubber-tired
bulldozers, graders, tractors, loaders, and
backhoes. The proposed project would require up
to 72,000 cubic yards of cut. Demolition debris, including soil from excavation, would be off hauled for
disposal at the Zanker Materials Recovery and Landfill in San Jose, which is approximately 12 miles from
the project site. This would be done in accordance with the CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion
of Construction and Demolition Waste.48
CONSTRUCTION
As shown in Table 3-1, the longest construction phase is the building of the hotel, which would take place
over a 16-month period followed by much shorter time periods for paving and painting. Project
construction would result in an approximately 129,000-square-foot hotel building, 88,000-square-foot
subterranean garage, and 18,000-square-foot driveway and surface parking. Approximately 2,100 square
feet of landscaping would also be installed. The total area to be disturbed during construction would be
1.29 acres. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and construction fencing
would be installed. All staging areas would occur on site and no staging would occur in the public right-of-
way. A combination of on- and off-site parking facilities for construction workers would be identified
during demolition, grading, and construction.
47 New buildings would be constructed to the California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1,
2020).
48 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of
Construction and Demolition Waste.
TABLE 3-1 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Activity Phase 1 (work days)
Demolition 10
Site Preparation 5
Grading 30
Building Construction 425
Paving 10
Painting 20
Source. Based on information from the project applicant, California
Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.25, and PlaceWorks, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
330 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-26 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
3.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following approval of this Initial Study and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following
discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required for the proposed project:
General Plan Amendment
Development Agreement
Development Permit
Encroachment Agreement
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Use Permit
In addition, permits for demolition, grading, encroachments and building, and a certificate of occupancy
would be required from the City.
3.4 VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY AMENITIES
The proposed project would provide the following community benefits:
complementary use of conference facilities for public schools within Cupertino and City of
Cupertino for up to 12 days per year;
reduced rate for use of hotel shuttle for Cupertino residents for airport transportation needs on
the hotel’s schedule;
funding of a one-time payment of $500,000; and
an enclosed or unenclosed rooftop amenity, including but not limited to a deck, bar, or restaurant,
with public access, not to exceed the height of any rooftop mechanical equipment enclosure.
Final fees and voluntary community benefits would be determined upon approval of the project.
CC 03-03-20
331 of 873
PLACEWORKS 4-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Environmental Analysis
4.1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, under the subheading “Tiering Process,” the General Plan EIR
contains an analysis of the project site, which is within Study Area 1 (Cupertino Hotel and Goodyear Tire)
of the General Plan EIR, which assumed potential redevelopment of the site, including a five-story hotel
with up to 250 rooms and conference facilities and a maximum height of 145 feet. The cumulative
impacts, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout, were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR.
The proposed project is anticipated to be complete in 2022 (subject to regulatory approval); thus, this
Initial Study presents a focused analysis to evaluate the near-term impacts of the proposed project under
existing and cumulative conditions.
Consistent with the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR, and due to the proposed project’s location
in an urbanized city setting, the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry or
mineral resources. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency categorize land within Cupertino as Urban and Built-Up Land.49 In addition,
according to the 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the
city does not contain any woodland or forestland cover.50 Finally, the city does not contain land zoned for
farmland or timberland production.51 Consequently, there would be no impacts with regard to agriculture
and forestry resources. The project site is within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is
an area containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be evaluated from available data.52
Consequently, because the site has been developed and is not considered suitable for protection or
conservation, there would be no impacts to mineral resources. For these reasons, these topics are not
discussed further in this Initial Study.
Senate Bill (SB) 743 became effective on January 1, 2014 and, among other provisions, SB 743 amended
CEQA by adding Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of aesthetics, parking, and traffic
impacts for urban infill projects. The following is a discussion of how aesthetics and parking are treated in
SB 743.
49 California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland
2010, accessed on July 23, 2018.
50 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map,
accessed on July 23, 2018.
51 City of Cupertino, Zoning Map, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=291, accessed on July 23, 2018.
52 City of Cupertino, General Plan Community Vision 2015–2040, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability,
Figure ES-2, Mineral Resources.
CC 03-03-20
332 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential,
or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, aesthetics and parking are no longer to be
considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects if the
project meets the following criteria:
Is located on an infill site,
Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center, and
Is located in a transit priority area.
As described below, the proposed hotel is located on a site that meets the definition of an infill site and
the proposed project is a qualified “employment center” but the site does not meet the definition of a
designated “transit priority area” pursuant to SB 743:
Infill Site: An infill site is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously
developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is
separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified
urban uses.”
The site is currently developed with a commercial building (Goodyear Tire). Surrounding uses include
commercial buildings in the Homestead Square and parking lots to the north and west, the existing
Aviare Apartment complex to the east across North De Anza Boulevard, and Cupertino Hotel to the
south. Hence, the site qualifies as infill.
Employment Center: An employment center is defined as “a project located on property zoned for
commercial uses with a FAR of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.” The
project site is within the General Commercial with special development regulations (CG-rg) Zoning
District. The proposed hotel would have a FAR of 2.5.53
Transit Priority Area: A transit priority area is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major
transit stop that exists or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the
planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section
450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As shown in Table 4-14 in section
XV, Transportation, below, the project site is not within a half mile of a “major transit stop” as defined
by CEQA section 21064.3 (the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of
service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods) and
CEQA section 21155(b) (a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service
with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours).
53 The floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot to the area of the lot. A hotel
development does not have a FAR limit for the Commercial/Retail General Plan Land Use designation or General Commercial
with special development regulations (CG-rg) Zoning District.
CC 03-03-20
333 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Stops 55 and 81 are located near each of
the corners of the North De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road intersection, approximately a two-
minute walk (about 500 feet or 0.1 miles) from the project site but they do not meet the 15-minute
frequency of service interval.54 Local Route 55 provides transit service from De Anza College to Great
America Parkway between 5:38 a.m. and 10:54 p.m., with 15- to 35-minute headways. Local Route 81
provides transit service from Moffett Field/Ames Center to San Jose State University between 6:06
a.m. and 9:04 p.m., with 25- to 35-minute headways. Additionally, while the project site is in the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas PDA, this PDA is not a
recognized Transit Priority Area.55
Since the site does not meet the criteria in SB 743, the aesthetic-related impacts are discussed in Section
I, Aesthetics, of this Initial Study. With respect to parking impacts, effective in 2010, parking inadequacy as
significant environmental impact was eliminated from the CEQA Guidelines by The Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research, which is the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement
CEQA. Accordingly, parking adequacy is not discussed further in this Initial Study.
Items identified in each section of the environmental checklist below are discussed following that section.
Required mitigation measures are identified where necessary to reduce a projected impact to a level that
is determined to be less than significant. All impacts were found to be less than significant or less than
significant with mitigation.
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (transit
priority area/major transit stop), would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a State scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publically accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
54 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Bus Schedules for Bus 55 and 81. http://www.vta.org/routes/rt55 and
http://www.vta.org/routes/rt81, respectively; accessed on January 4, 2019.
55 Plan Bay Area, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Priority
Development Area (PDA) and Transit Priority Area (TPA) Map for CEQA Streamlining, https://www.planbayarea.org/pda-tpa-map,
accessed on January 4, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
334 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to visual resources associated with
maximum building heights up to 145 feet for future buildings on the project site. Impacts at this maximum
height were found to be less than significant.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site contains an existing one-story (approximately 18 feet tall) commercial building that is
bordered by surface parking, a sidewalk along De Anza Boulevard, and mature trees. Surrounding uses
include the one-story (30 feet tall) buildings in the Homestead Square shopping center to the north and
west, the three-story (approximately 45 feet) Aviare Apartments to the east, and the four-story
(approximately 45 feet) Cupertino Hotel to the south.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would have the
potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if the new intensified development on the project
site blocked views of areas that provide or contribute to such vistas. Potential effects could include
blocking views of a scenic vista/corridor from specific publicly accessible vantage points or the alteration
of the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. Such alterations could be positive or negative, depending on the
characteristics of the project site and the subjective perception of observers.
Public views of scenic corridors are views seen along a linear transportation route and public views of
scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range
views, while scenic corridors are comprised of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan
does not have designated scenic corridors or vistas. However, for purposes of this analysis, the westward
views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic vistas, and the
segment of I-280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east also is considered a scenic
corridor.
The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that an increase of building height of up to 145 feet would
result in a less-than-significant impact to the long-range views of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range and
foothills because the maximum heights of the existing on-site and surrounding buildings and mature
trees, currently limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas from street-level public viewing and
because the project location is not considered a destination public viewing point nor is it visible from
scenic vistas.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the existing building would be removed
and replaced by the proposed building that would consist of a seven-story building with a rooftop terrace,
lounge, and bar over four levels of below-grade parking, and would be 70 feet and 8 inches at the roofline
CC 03-03-20
335 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
and 88 feet at the highest point (rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures). All 11 of the
existing trees, which range in height from about 20 to 50 feet, would remain as part of the proposed
project.
Because the proposed project would involve height increases that are less than what was evaluated in
then General Plan EIR, and because existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources combined
with the fact that the site and surrounding areas are not destination viewing locations, impacts would
remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
b) Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the segment of I-280 in Cupertino is not
an officially designated State Scenic Highway but is considered to be eligible to be designated as a State
Scenic Highway. The section of I-280 that is near the project site is at a lower elevation. Any views of the
mountains are currently impeded by the existing tree canopy along I-280, the one-story (approximately 30
feet) buildings in the Homestead Shopping Center, the four-story (approximately 45-feet) Cupertino Hotel,
and three-story (approximately 45-feet) Aviare Apartments buildings. There would be no changes from
the I-280 viewshed because the freeway is located south of the site and the project site is not visible from
that location. Impacts to views of scenic resources from the I-280 view corridor were determined to be
less than significant in the General Plan EIR.
Because the project proposes height increases that would be less than what is evaluated in then General
Plan EIR and existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources, including those from the I-280
viewshed, project impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and
would be less than significant.
c) Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character in non-urbanized areas,
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Is the project in an urbanized area, and
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is in an urbanized area that is not a designated or otherwise identified as a public viewing
location for surrounding scenic views. Additionally, public views of scenic resources including the
westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the segment of I-280 from
Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east are partially obstructed due to the natural
topography and the existing buildings in the project area.
The proposed project would result in a change from the existing one-story (approximately 18 feet tall)
commercial building to a seven-story hotel building with a rooftop terrace, lounge, and bar. The project
site is within the General Commercial with special development regulations (CG-rg) zoning district, which
is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely
suited for planned coordination of land uses and requires a driveway that is equal to the width of three
CC 03-03-20
336 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
cars.56 The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to reduce the slope line (setback height)
and increase the height.57 The proposed development would be required to provide suitable setbacks
from public rights-of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings adjacent to low-
density residential development. Furthermore, the proposed project would increase the landscaping to
include 14 new trees in addition to the 11 existing trees that currently surround the perimeter of the
project site. Combined, the existing and proposed trees would help to preserve the existing visual setting.
The project is separated from the Homestead Square Shopping Center to the west by an approximately
20-foot (two-lanes) wide internal roadway, from the Commercial/Retail building to the north by an
approximately 40-foot (three-lanes) wide driveway, from the Aviare Apartments to the east by North De
Anza Boulevard, which is approximately 150 feet (six-lanes) wide including the landscaped median, and
from Cupertino Hotel building to the south by an approximately 34-foot (two-lane) wide driveway.58 The
roadway and existing landscaping would remain intact and continue to serve as a buffer between the
project site and the surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, the project is subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the
Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Chapters 19.12 and
19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance, which would ensure the proposed project would harmonize with
adjacent development and not degrade the existing visual quality of the site and surrounding land uses.
Accordingly, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would
remain less than significant.
d) Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects on adjoining uses and areas of a project’s exterior
lighting. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with
the proposed lighting plan or policies. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the
project site and surrounding area contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include
street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing commercial and
residential buildings. Additional on-site light and glare is caused by surrounding land uses and traffic on
surrounding roadways. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the source,
intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the project site would be typical for becoming orientated and
safety needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare.
There would be no up-lighting on the building exterior. All exterior surface and above-ground mounted
fixtures would be complementary to the existing architectural theme. The existing roadways as well as the
existing and proposed surface parking and landscaping surrounding the project would act as a buffer to
56 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.010, Purpose.
57 The primary building bulk is below a 1:1 slope line (i.e., 1 foot of setback for every 1 foot of building height.)
58 The existing driveways off North De Anza Boulevard meet three-car width standard required by the CG-rg Zoning code.
CC 03-03-20
337 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
prevent light spilling on to adjacent land uses and the Aviare Apartments to the east, separated from the
project site by North De Anza Boulevard which is approximately 150 feet (six-lane) wide including the
landscaped median. The proposed project would not include reflective glass and all exterior glass in the
building would have a light reflectance value of more than 15 percent. Where glass features are
considered, the proposed project would use non-reflective or “fritted glass” that is used specifically to
reduce glare. For these reasons, and because the project proposes less development than what was
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General
Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
II. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under
applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the air quality impacts associated with
intensified development of the project site. Air quality impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable
in the General Plan EIR and requires the City to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a,
AQ-2b and AQ-4b, which are project-specific mitigation measures that would reduce construction-related
impacts and to ensure that mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are not covered under the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) permits are considered during subsequent project-
level environmental review.
While Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR addresses the impacts associated with the
development on the project site, the analysis was performed at a program level. This section analyzes the
types and quantities of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation
of the proposed project. An update to the background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting,
meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site, and air quality
modeling is in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Initial Study. The health risk
assessment (HRA) for this project is in Appendix B, Health Risk Assessment, of this Initial Study.
CC 03-03-20
338 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing commercial building (Goodyear Tire) generates criteria air pollutants from transportation
sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment and
architectural coatings. Current land uses generate approximately 98 average daily trips.59 Existing
emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4-1, below.
TABLE 4-1 EXISTING CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing 2018 Emissions
Area <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile <1 <1 <1 <1
Total <1 <1 <1 <1
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Total <1 <1 <1 <1
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25.
Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and
State law under the National and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air pollutants are categorized as
primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from
sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are
primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that
ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The National and California AAQS
are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health
and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further
respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by
other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate
59 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
339 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-9
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before
adverse effects are observed.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate emissions of TACs .
The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to
an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal
Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the
California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is
authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may
cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential
hazard to human health.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the BAAQMD are relied upon to make the
determinations discussed below.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) to achieve National and California AAQS. In April of 2017
BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan, which is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air
pollution in the SFBAAB. Regional growth projections are used by BAAQMD to forecast future emission
levels in the SFBAAB. For the Bay Area, these regional growth projections are provided by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and transportation projections are provided by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general
plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth
projections. The proposed project would construct a 156-room hotel, which is within the 1,339-hotel-
room maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any new population
growth or employment growth. The proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled or VMT and
warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG and MTC.
As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not exceed the level of
population or housing projected in City or regional planning efforts (Plan Bay Area) through 2040, and it
would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections
within the region, which is the basis of the 2017 Clean Air Plan projections. Furthermore, the net increase
in regional emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than the BAAQMD’s emissions
thresholds with mitigation (see criterion (b) below). These thresholds were established to identify projects
that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed
CC 03-03-20
340 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be considered by the
BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be considered less
than significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project area is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards?
This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from a combination of the
proposed project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the SFBAAB. The
SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and
National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air
quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the
area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (the SFBAAB), a project is cumulatively
significant when project-related emissions exceed the BAAQMD emissions thresholds.
BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant
precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds
are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes changes in
regional impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.
Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty
construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the
construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from
demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from
construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction
activities associated with the project would result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and fine PM2.5.
Construction Fugitive Dust
Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). The
amount of dust generated during construction would be highly variable and is dependent on the amount
of material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If
uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State
standards. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less
than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices, which are shown in
Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Impact AQ-1: Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated by the proposed project during construction could
potentially result in significant regional short-term air quality impacts without implementation of the Bay
CC 03-03-20
341 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Area Air Quality Management District’s best management practices related to reducing fugitive dust
emissions.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following best
management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as
required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour.
Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity
of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
Construction Exhaust Emissions
The proposed project would result in demolition debris and would require soil export for the underground
parking that would occur near existing sensitive land uses. Thus, the BAAQMD screening criteria for
construction-related impacts would not be met. A quantified analysis of the proposed project’s
construction emissions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version
2016.3.2.25 based on information provided by the project applicant. The approximately 2-year
construction period is assumed to begin in August 2020 and end in 2022. Potential construction-related
air quality impacts are determined by comparing the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions
generated by the proposed project-related construction activities to the BAAQMD significance thresholds
in Table 4-2. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total
number of active construction days. As shown in Table 4-2, criteria air pollutant emissions from
construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily thresholds and impacts
from project-related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant.
CC 03-03-20
342 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Year
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)a
VOC NOx
Fugitive
PM10b
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5b
Exhaust
PM2.5b
2020 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1
2021 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1
2022 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total 1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)a
Average Daily Emissionsc 5 17 1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Average Daily Project-
Level Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No N/A No N/A No
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; N/A = not applicable
a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information
regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on
construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.
b. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two
times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping.
c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of
construction days is estimated to be about 425.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25
Operational Impacts
Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by a hotel development are typically associated with the
burning of fossil fuels in vehicle trips to and from the hotel (mobile sources); energy use for cooling,
heating, and cooking (energy); and landscape equipment use and household products (area sources). The
primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be emissions
produced from project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed project would generate a net total of 1,660
vehicle trips, an increase of 1,562 average daily weekday trips over the existing land uses at the site.60
Table 4-3 identifies the net increase in criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed
project compared to the baseline operation.
60 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
343 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-3 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)a
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing 2022 Projected Emissions
Area <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1
On-Road Mobile <1 <1 <1 <1
Total <1 <1 <1 <1
Proposed Land Use 2022 Emissions
Area 3 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 <1 <1
On-Road Mobile 2 2 6 2
Total 5 3 6 2
Net Change in Emissions
Area 3 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 <1 <1
On-Road Mobile 2 2 6 2
Total 5 3 6 2
BAAQMD Average Daily Project-Level
Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceeds BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Net Change 1 1 1 <1
BAAQMD Annual Project-Level
Threshold 10 10 15 10
Exceeds BAAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
a Average daily emissions are based on the annual operational emissions divided by 365 days.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25.
As shown in Table 4-3, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the project would not
exceed the BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB and impacts from project-related operation
activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant.
Summary
As described, the proposed project would not have a significant long-term operational phase impact.
However, also discussed above, without incorporation of fugitive dust control measures required by
BAAQMD, construction activities associated with the proposed project could potentially result in
CC 03-03-20
344 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
significant regional short-term air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that required
fugitive dust control measures are implemented to control project-related fugitive dust generated during
construction activities. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Development that would be accommodated by the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to
elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the construction emissions shown above in Table 4-2 under
criterion (b), described in pounds per day (PPD), localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant
in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects.
Construction Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards
The proposed project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses
during construction activities. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation
During Construction (2017) that evaluate construction-related health risks associated with residential,
commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the residences are closer than the
distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen out potential health risks and, therefore, could be
potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the
project site are the residents at the Aviare Apartments, which is approximately 150 feet to the east of the
project across North De Anza Boulevard. Consequently, a site- specific construction health risk assessment
(HRA) of TACs and PM2.5 was prepared (see Appendix B of this Initial Study).
A quantified analysis of the project’s construction emissions was conducted using the CalEEMod, Version
2016.3.2.25. Construction emissions were based on 425 working days of the total 2-year construction
duration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AERMOD, Version 9.5, dispersion
modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index for
non-carcinogenic risk, and the PM2.5 maximum annual concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – UNMITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million) Chronic Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor –
Offsite Residences 33.4 0.10 0.19
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual.
Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.5 (2017).
CC 03-03-20
345 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-15
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration over a 2-year construction
exposure duration for off-site receptors, assuming 24-hour outdoor exposure.61 Risk is based on the
updated Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual:62
Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off-site resident from only construction activities related to the
proposed project were calculated to be 33.4 in a million and would exceed the 10 in a million-
significance threshold. Utilizing the latest 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual, the calculated total cancer
risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third
trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 2-year construction
period; therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was
conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260 construction days per
year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions.
For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint
totaled less than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic
hazards are within acceptable limits.
The highest PM2.5 annual concentration of 0.19 is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).
Because cancer risk for the maximum exposed receptor would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds
due to construction activities associated with the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is
proposed.
Impact AQ-2: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) for all equipment of
50 horsepower or more.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the
City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for
Level 3 DPF emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of
Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state
the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer recommendations.
61 The 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual identified
that exposure duration has changed from 70 years to 30 years for operational risk to residents; however, the risk is still averaged
over a 70-year lifetime.
62 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments.
CC 03-03-20
346 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-16 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all
nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with
California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is
met.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in Table
4-5. The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risk would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds for residential-based receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose off-site sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
TABLE 4-5 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Offsite Residences 5.1 0.015 0.03
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which includes using construction equipment with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for equipment
over 50 horsepower.
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment guidance.
Operation Phase Community Risk and Hazards
Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs include
industrial (stationary sources), manufacturing, and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. These types of
major air pollutant emissions sources are not included as part of the proposed hotel project. Thus,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in creation of land uses that would generate
substantial concentrations of TACs.
Development of the proposed hotel may result in stationary sources of TACs emissions from the
restaurant’s use of charbroilers, or emergency generators and boilers. However, these sources are not
considered to be large emitters. Examples of projects which generate substantial TAC emissions are
distribution centers with more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units
(TRUs) per day, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners, gasoline dispensing facilities, and railyards.63
Possible stationary sources associated with hotels would require permits from BAAQMD to limit TAC
emissions (e.g., diesel-fueled emergency generators over 50 horsepower, water boilers with natural gas
combustion). The permitting process ensures that stationary source emissions would be below the
BAAQMD significance thresholds of 10 in a million-cancer risk and 1 for acute risk at the maximally
exposed individual. Additionally, hotel-related truck deliveries would be less than CARB’s recommended
63 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook.
CC 03-03-20
347 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-17
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
advisory criteria for distribution centers (100 trucks per day). Therefore, overall, impacts related to TACs
are considered less than significant.
CO Hotspot Analysis
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.
These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the
8-hour standard of 9 ppm. The proposed project would not conflict with the VTA’s Congestion
Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in the CMP
or alter regional travel patterns. VTA ’s CMP must be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040. An overarching
goal of the regional Plan Bay Area 2040 is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing
services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial
transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles
traveled, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed project is an infill hotel development
that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian
routes (see Section XV, Transportation, below), and for these reasons would be consistent with the overall
goals of the Plan Bay Area 2040. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would result in
the generation of 84 AM (morning) peak hour trips on a weekday 64 and would not increase traffic volumes
at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where
vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots
would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Construction and operation of hotel developments would not generate odors that would affect a
substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors
include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum
refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Hotel uses are
not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance.
During operation, the on-site restaurant could generate odors from cooking. Odors from cooking are not
substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people.
Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which
requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous
Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain
64 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
348 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-18 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
odorous compounds.65 For restaurants and commercial kitchens, the City generally requires installation of
charcoal activated filtration systems as a condition of approval to further control odors.
Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no
person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material
which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the
public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” During
construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural
coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary
and intermittent. Additionally, odors would typically be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be
diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
In summary, because construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent, hotel
developments are not considered the type of use that would generate odors that would affect a
substantial number of people and the proposed project is required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7,
odor-related impacts to off-site land uses would be less than significant.
III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or
essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-
status species?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community type?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife
corridors or nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting
biological resources?
65 It should be noted that while restaurants can generate odors, these sources are not identified by BAAQMD as nuisance
odors because they typically do not generate significant odors that affect a substantial number of people. Larger restaurants that
employ five or more people are subject to BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
CC 03-03-20
349 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-19
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to biological resources
associated with intensified development of the project site. Impacts to biological resources are found to
be less than significant and less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures to ensure
impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would not be significant. The
project is required to comply with the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure the protection
of nesting raptors and other birds when in active use, as required by the federal MBTA and the California
of Fish and Game Code (CFG Code).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As previously described, the project site contains an existing and occupied Goodyear Tire, which provides
new tires, tire repairs, oil changes, and other automotive care services, and associated surface parking lot.
The site contains ornamental landscaping for the existing and surrounding commercial spaces, including
11 trees, of which six are located along North De Anza Boulevard. The existing trees range in height from
20 to 50 feet. There are no buildings immediately adjacent to the site. Surrounding uses include the one-
story (30 feet tall) buildings in the Homestead Square shopping center to the north and west, the three-
story (approximately 45 feet) Aviare Apartments to the east, and the four-story (approximately 45 feet)
Cupertino Hotel to the south.
The project site and surrounding area has been urbanized and now contains roadways, structures, other
impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. Remnant native trees are scattered
throughout the urbanized area, together with non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. As previously
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the CALVEG 66 habitat mapping program, classifies the site as
an “urban area” that tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural
communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance.
The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and type of landscaping and remaining open space,
as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs used for landscaping provide nest sites and
cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typic al native bird species include the mourning dove,
66 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify
California’s existing vegetation communities for use in Statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification
on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous.
CC 03-03-20
350 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-20 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, brown towhee, American crow, and Anna’s
hummingbird, among others. Introduced species include the rock dove, European starling, house finch,
and house sparrow. Urban areas can also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as
the California ground squirrel and striped skunk, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern
red fox. Introduced pest species such as the Norway rat, house mouse, and opossum are also abundant in
developed areas.
Wetlands and jurisdictional waters within the city boundary include creek corridors and associated
riparian scrub and woodland, and areas of freshwater marsh around ponds, seeps, springs, and other
waterbodies. Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and woodland occur along segments of the
numerous creeks through the urbanized valley floor. The project site does not encompass these creek
corridors or contain other regulated waters. The project site is not near or adjacent to any natural areas.
There is no existing wildlife movement corridor designation on the site by any agency, including the
United States Fish and Wildlife or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special-status plant or animal species
on the project site or urbanized areas within a 1-mile area surrounding the project site. There are no
natural lands within a 1-mile area of the project site. There is a possibility that birds could nest in trees
and other landscaping on the project site. The nests of most bird species are protected under the MBTA
when in active use and there is a remote possibility that one or more raptor species protected under the
MBTA and CFG Code, could nest on the project site. These include both the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperi) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leuocurus), which have reported CNDDB occurrences within the city
boundary, together with more common raptors such as red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and American
kestrel, all of which are protected by the MBTA and CFG Code when their nests are in active use. However,
no essential habitat for these or other special-status species is present on the site due to its developed
condition.
Numerous bat species are known to be in the Cupertino area, most of which are relatively common and
are not considered special-status species. As previously stated, the CNDDB does not show any
occurrences of special-status bats within the site vicinity or anywhere in Cupertino but does show records
within several miles of Cupertino. The records include occurrences of Townsend’s big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Yu ma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). These
three species have no legal protected status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, but
Townsend’s big-eared bat is considered a Species of Special Concern by the CDFW. These species have
various priority rankings with the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), ranging from “High” for
Townsend’s big-eared bat, “Medium” for hoary bat, to “Low-Medium” for Yuma myotis. Bat species found
in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but because the Goodyear
Tire is occupied no suitable habitat for maternity roosts are on the site.
CC 03-03-20
351 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-21
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
According to the Vegetation Map shown in the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the
General Plan most of the City, including the project site, is within the urban forest.67 The City recognizes
that every tree on both public and private property is an important part of Cupertino's urban forest and
contributes significant economic, environmental and aesthetic benefits of the community.68 All 11 existing
trees will remain on the project site as part of the proposed project. The existing tree species are not
native to California, nor indigenous to the project site. Since the existing development is on property that
requires a development application, all existing trees on the site are considered protected.69
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status
species?
Nesting Birds
As stated above in the existing conditions discussion, there are no known occurrences of special-status
plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, but there is a
possibility that birds that are protected by the MBTA and CFG Code could nest in trees and other
landscaping on the project site. However, no essential habitat for these or other special-status species is
present on the site due to its developed condition. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that impacts
to special-status species, including nesting birds, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Accordingly, the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would also be required for the project to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate,
sensitive or special-status species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as
required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If
construction activities and any required tree removal are proposed to occur during the breeding
season (February 1 and August 31), the construction contractor shall indicate, on all construction
plans, that preconstruction surveys shall:
67 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability
Element, Figure ES-1.
68 City of Cupertino, Tree Protection and Tree Removal link on the City’s website, Accessed May 6, 2019 at
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/residential-development/tree-protection-
tree-removal.
69 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees.
CC 03-03-20
352 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-22 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction
activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction,
grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which
surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
Protective measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such
as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the
qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance
and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet
for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season
to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are
determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the
qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging
independently or the nest is no longer active.
Bird Collision
Avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings, towers and other man-made structures
is a common occurrence in city and suburban settings. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass
and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images, particularly when the
glass is transparent and views through the structure are possible. Night-time lighting can interfere with
movement patters of some night-migrating birds, causing disorientation or attracting them to the light
source. The frequency of bird collisions in a particular area is dependent on numerous factors, including:
characteristics of building height, fenestration (the arrangement of windows and doors on the elevations
of a building) and exterior treatments of windows and their relationship to other buildings and vegetation
in the area; local and migratory avian populations, their movement patterns, and proximity of water, food
and other attractants, time of year; prevailing winds; weather conditions; and other variables.
The proposed hotel would alter the physical characteristics of the site; however, this change is not
expected to contribute to a substantial increase in the risk of collisions to local and migratory birds. This is
due to several reasons, including the fact that the surrounding area is already intensively developed with
structures ranging in height from approximately 18 feet to 45 feet with similar bulk and surface treatment;
and the proposed building materials would have a light reflectance value of more than 15 percent, and
CC 03-03-20
353 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-23
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
the proposed lighting is low-level illumination with no up-lighting on the building exterior. The railings
located on the second-floor balconies and roof top lounge would also incorporate UV coating, frosting,
and fritting to make them visible to birds and reduce bird collisions. Because the site vicinity is already
intensively developed with urban use and the site is currently developed with an occupied structure, most
birds, as under existing conditions, would likely acclimate to the presence of the new building once
completed. The potential risk of bird collision with the new building would be a less-than-significant
impact.
While the exterior treatment of the proposed new hotel is in the conceptual phase and has not yet been
finalized, and must still go through Design Review, there are design options to minimize the risk of bird
collisions through the use of well-documented bird-safe designs for window treatments, roof top
equipment, and night-time lighting. While any bird collisions that do occur should not have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status bird species or more common bird species that may be flying through the
vicinity, the applicant has committed to implementing bird-safe design measures in the new building,
which would further address the low risk of collision. These include the following measures that would be
part of the design of the new building:
Non-Reflective Glass: No reflective glass would be used in the building consistent with the San
Francisco Bird Safe Recommendations 70 that state that reflective glass should be avoided, because
some birds in certain circumstances might see vegetation in the reflection and fly into a building.
None of the exterior glass in the building will have a light reflectance value of more than 15
percent.
Fritted Glass: Fritted glass is a non-reflective glass that is used to reduce glare and lower the
danger to birds. Using fritted glass on the upper floor windows of the new building (4th through
6th floors) would help prevent possible bird strikes. Fritting helps diminish the transparency of
glass and is a documented approach to helping reduce the probability of bird collisions.
Transparent glass used in “design traps” such as glass bridges or parapets can also be problematic.
The project proposes glass railing elements on the second-floor balconies and roof top lounge,
which would incorporate UV coatings, frosting, and fritting to make them visible to birds to
reduce collisions.
Building Lighting: Overly lit buildings can be problematic, especially if there is up-lighting. The
project is required to meet City code minimum standards on exterior lighting, and the new
building would have no up-lighting. The source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the
project site would generally be provided for the purpose of orienting site users and for safety
needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or
glare.
Tree Screening on Lower Floors (1st through 3rd): The proposed project includes 14 new trees on
the perimeter of the building in addition to the 11 mature trees that would remain. These trees
would help shield lower floors, which shielding would increase as the new trees grow over time.
70 San Francisco Planning Department, 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings, San Francisco, California. Adopted July 14;
CC 03-03-20
354 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-24 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Reduced Unnecessary Interior Lights: Energy conservation measures, such as employing automatic
sensors to turn off lights when guests are not present in guest rooms, would be used as part of
interior lighting for the new building.
The location of the project site, the building design features and selected materials, were determined to
adequately address the remote potential for special-status bird species dispersing through the site vicinity
to collide with the new structure and be injured or killed. These measures would serve to minimize the
potential for bird strikes through the use of bird-friendly design guidelines in the treatment of windows
and other aspects of the proposed hotel building, and would ensure any potential impact would be less
than significant for special-status birds and more common bird species.
Roosting Bats
b) As described in the existing conditions, the CNDDB records were recently searched for, among other
species, occurrences of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus), and Yuma myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis). These three species have no legal protected
status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, but Townsend’s big-eared bat is considered
a Species of Special Concern by the CDFW. Bat species found in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and
occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for maternity roots is absent from
the site. The potential for any special-status bat species to be present on the site is considered highly
remote, given the urbanization of the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which typically
discourages possible occupation by special-status bats. Accordingly, the construction and operation of
the proposed project would not result in the inadvertent loss of any bats and impacts would be less
than significant. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community type?
As discussed in the existing conditions above and determined in the General Plan EIR, development of the
proposed project would occur in an urbanized area where no sensitive natural communities are found;
therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
As discussed in the existing conditions above and determined in the General Plan EIR, development of the
proposed project would occur in an urbanized area and there are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters on
or near the project site; therefore, no impact would occur directly.
Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for
sedimentation due to construction grading and ground disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for
erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the
potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants. However, indirect
CC 03-03-20
355 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-25
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
impacts would be largely avoided through effective implementation of best management practices during
construction and compliance with water quality controls. As discussed below in Section IX, Hydrology and
Water Q uality, of this Initial Study, water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, which implements Provision C.3 of the Municipal
Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) adopted by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Adherence to these permit
conditions requires the project to incorporate treatment measures, an agreement to maintain them, and
other appropriate source control and site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum
extent practicable. Many of the requirements involve low impact development practices such as the use
of on-site infiltration that reduce pollutant loading. Incorporation of these measures can even improve on
existing conditions. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the Municipal
Regional NPDES Permit (CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection)
and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that require the
incorporation of best management practices to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials
contamination of runoff during construction. The indirect water quality-related issues are discussed
further in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. As discussed in Impact HYDRO-1,
water quality impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, indirect impacts to wetlands and
jurisdictional waters would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites?
Development on the project site would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive wildlife resources and
important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of the existing development.
Wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be displaced where existing structures are
demolished and landscaping is removed as part of future development, but these species are relatively
abundant, and adapted to human disturbance. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this
Initial Study, the proposed project would retain the 11 existing trees that border the project site and
would also include landscaping that would provide replacement habitat for wildlife species that may have
adapted to the project site. Therefore, project impacts on the movement of fish and wildlife, wildlife
corridors, or wildlife nursery sites would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures
would be required.
e) Would the project conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources?
As discussed in criteria (a) through (d), above, development of the project site would occur in an
urbanized area where sensitive biological and wetland resources are considered to be absent, and no
major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances related to biological resources in the General Plan
and/or CMC would occur. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project. However, because
the existing development is on property that requires a development application, all existing trees on the
CC 03-03-20
356 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-26 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
site are considered protected.71 Therefore, if trees were to be removed, compliance with the City’s Tree
Ordinances (CMC Chapter 14.12 and Chapter 14.18), which requires replacement trees, would ensure
impacts related to the removal of trees would be less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
conservation plan includes the city or the project site, and the proposed project would not conflict with
any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
conservation plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources (TCRs) associated with intensified development of the project site and impacts are less
than significant. The following is a summary of Section, 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.4, which
is based on the cultural resource analysis conducted by Tom Origer & Associates on July 24, 2013,
included as Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, of the General Plan EIR. The cultural resources study
consists of archival research at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination
of the library and files, field inspection, and contact with the Native American community. As shown in
Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural
Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources on the project site.
71 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees.
CC 03-03-20
357 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-27
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1,
Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources on the project site.
The project site was developed in 1971 and 1972, which is within the 45-year age limit established by the
State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for buildings that may be of historical value.72 However, the
existing building is not associated with significant cultural events or persons in California’s past and does
not have any distinctive historical characteristics, and as such does not have any qualifying historical value.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites may qualify as historical resources.73
Archaeological resources are addressed in criterion (b), and human remains are addressed below in
criterion (c), below.
The project site currently has a commercial building developed in 1971 and 1972. As described in the
existing conditions above, the existing building does not meet the criteria for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, the General Plan EIR did not identify the project site or
existing building as a historic resource, and the existing building is not currently listed as a California
Historical Resource.74 Accordingly, less-than-significant impacts to historical architectural resources would
occur as a result of project development and no mitigation measures would be required.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Subsurface historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of historical
resource under CEQA Section 21084.1 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 could be present at the
project site and could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., site
preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with development allowed under
the proposed project. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either as
containing information about prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional or cultural significance to
Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired.
72 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
73 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c), Determining the Significance of Impacts on
Historical and Unique Archeological Resources.
74 Office of Historic Preservation, Listed California Historical Resources,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=43, accessed July 23, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
358 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-28 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
While the project site is developed and the cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR did
not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site, the site could still contain subsurface
archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials.
Therefore, any project-related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to affect subsurface
prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1
would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified, and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in the recovery of the materials.
Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for tribal cultural resources,
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the resource to the
California Register of Historical Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also
include appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and appropriate
mitigations as follows:
• If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the
find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
• If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the consulting
archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the
resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or
mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project
design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures
(e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary, and at the discretion
of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown
remains during ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project could occur.
Any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project
would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations to ensure no adverse impacts to human remains
would occur in the unlikely event human remains are found.
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the
mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions
CC 03-03-20
359 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-29
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Santa
Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the
remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which would, in turn,
notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendants (MLD) of any human remains.
Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make
recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following allowed access to the project site. If
the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity,
reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner
does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the MLD may request mediation by the
NAHC.
Therefore, with the mandatory regulatory procedures described above, potential impacts related to the
potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction
activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
V. ENERGY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, includes an analysis of impacts
related to energy. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station
Areas PDA, which, amongst other uses, are areas designated for energy-efficient infill development with
existing infrastructure that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and
bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) supplies electricity and natural gas to much of northern and central
California – from Humboldt and Shasta counties in the north to Kern and Santa Barbara counties in the
south – including the infrastructure for the City of Cupertino. Total electricity consumption in PG&E’s
CC 03-03-20
360 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-30 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
service area is forecast to increase from 104,868 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2015 to 119,633 GWh in
2027.75
The current project site is served by both electricity and natural gas connections. Electricity is supplied to
the project site via infrastructure maintained by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Silicon Valley Clean Energy
(SVCE), a locally controlled public agency that has a partnership with PG&E, supplies the electricity to the
project site. SVCE provides a standard 50 percent renewable energy portfolio, in addition to a 100 percent
renewable option that electricity customers can opt into. Natural gas and associated infrastructure are
provided and maintained by PG&E.
The current on-site utilities include a natural gas heating system and electric cooling system.76 Current
energy demands come from the operation of the 8,323 square-foot building that is one story
(approximately 18 feet) tall and built in 1971 and 1972.77 The existing building is currently occupied with a
Goodyear Tire, which provides new tires, tire repairs, oil changes, and other automotive care services and
provides about 10 jobs.78 According to the transportation analysis prepared for the project, the current
site generates about 98 average daily trips.79
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project would demolish the existing commercial building and replace it with a new building.
Construction activities use energy from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles,
vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew.
The operation of the proposed hotel would use energy for cooling, heating, cooking, and use of landscape
equipment, and for vehicle trips to and from the hotel. The proposed project would generate a net total
of 1,660 vehicle trips, an increase of 1,562 average daily weekday trips over the existing land uses at the
site.80
The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity
in a portion of the city. The project site currently has access to existing infrastructure and services, and
75 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2017. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=214635, accessed on June 11, 2019.
76 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
77 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
78 Personal communication between PlaceWorks and Goodyear Auto Service Center on January 9, 2019.
79 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
80 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
361 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-31
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
therefore would not result in new energy use associated with the construction or installation of new
transmission infrastructure for electricity, natural gas, water, wastewater, and storm water. The proposed
project would connect to the existing infrastructure systems and would not require new off-site energy
supply facilities or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities.
The project provides connectivity to existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and locates a hotel
development in close proximity to existing hotel-serving land uses and employment centers. As described
in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation as well as the Zoning District and would not result in new growth potential from what was
considered in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed hotel would meet the 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Public
Resources Code, Title 24, Part 6 that will take effect on January 1, 2020 and apply to any project that is
proposed to begin construction on or after August 2020. The 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards and require 30 percent more energy-efficiency for non-
residential buildings.81 As described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, the City enforces the CalGreen
Building Standards, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), in CMC Chapter 16.58, Green
Building Standards Code Adopted. CMC Chapter 16.58, Section 16.58.220, Table 101.10 requires that non-
residential new construction exceeding 50,000 square feet shall achieve a minimum green building
requirement of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver or an alternate green
building standard that is as stringent as LEED or other cited standards and is subject to third party
verification. Energy conserving features of the proposed project would include new landscaping that is
native and/or adaptive, and drought resistant to conserve water and subsequently energy. Additionally,
the proposed project would install solar panels on the roof level, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1, in
Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below, requires that the proposed photovoltaic generation system
(commonly referred to as a PV system or solar panels) to offset potential building electricity use. While
this measure is aimed at reducing GHG emissions, it also ensures energy efficiency.
New buildings constructed in PDAs and to the standards identified above would not result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Accordingly, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
As discussed below in criterion (b) of Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would
not conflict with the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area, or the Cupertino Climate
81 California Energy Commission’s website https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/index.html, accessed on
January 6, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
362 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-32 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Action Plan (CAP), both of which involve planning for us of renewable energy planning and energy
efficiency standards. Also, as previously discussed, the project would build to the most current 2019
Building and Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Public Resources Code, Title 24, Part 6.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to geological
and seismic-related impacts associated with intensified development of the project site. The following
discussion is based on project site information available in Section 4.5.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter
4.5.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following describes the existing conditions on the project site with respect to geology and soils:
CC 03-03-20
363 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-33
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Geology. The City of Cupertino lies in the west-central part of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, mostly
flat alluvial plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. The site is generally flat with an
average elevation of 213 feet above mean sea level and the depth of groundwater is estimated to be
125 feet below ground surface or deeper.
Soils. The soil is Urban Land Flaskan Complex, which is a well-drained sandy loam, sandy clay loam,
gravelly sandy clay loam and very gravelly sandy clay loam soil with a depth of 59 inches.82 Surficial
geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium,83 which is described as Holocene-age younger
alluvium and coarse-grained alluvium that are composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt,
sand, and clay and organic matter.
Fault Rupture. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United
States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal
movement along well-defined active fault zones such as the San Andreas Fault system. Many of these
zones exhibit a regional trend to the northwest. The site is not located within a State-designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone) or a Santa Clara
County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.84 No active fault traces are known to cross the site.
Liquefaction. The site is not located within a seismically inducted liquefaction hazard zone, as mapped
by the State of California and Santa Clara County.85 During cyclic ground shaking, such as seismic
shaking during an earthquake, cyclically-induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures
within the soil matrix, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soil may lose shear strength that may lead to
large shear deformations and/or flow failure. Liquefied soil can also settle as pore pressures dissipate
following an earthquake.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated, non-cohesive soils
with poor drainage, such as sands and silts with interbedded or capping layers of relatively low
permeability soil.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively
flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or
excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane and may often be
associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil are
displaced laterally toward the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate
away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the
risk of lateral spreading at the site is also considered low.
82 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
83 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San
Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K.
Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth.
84 Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones, Map 18, updated October 26, 2012.
85 http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_068_Cupertino.pdf, accessed on July 23, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
364 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-34 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Paleontology. A review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s fossil locality
database was conducted for the City of Cupertino. No paleontological resources have been identified
on the project site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils
indicates that the overall the city could contain paleontological resources.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?
Fault Rupture
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped
within the City of Cupertino, namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the southwestern most
part of the city. Because the site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone or Santa Clara County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, and no active faults are known to
traverse the site, the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The impacts from project
development as they relate to surface fault rupture are considered less than significant.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The hazards posed by strong seismic ground shaking during a major earthquake, while variable, are nearly
omnipresent in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, in the event of a large,
magnitude 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the city is projected to experience “strong” ground
shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the northeast part of the city where the project is
located. Adherence to applicable building code, including conformance to the California Building Code
(CBC) and the City’s building permit requirements would ensure that the impacts associated with strong
seismic ground shaking are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The impacts of project
development as they relate to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
Liquefaction
The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as
having a high potential for seismically induced liquefaction. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the
potential for seismically induced liquefaction in the vicinity appears low and is limited to a very narrow
strip of alluvial deposits that flank Calabazas Creek approximately 1 mile east of the project site.
Accordingly, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced
liquefaction would be less than significant.
CC 03-03-20
365 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-35
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Landslides
The site is generally flat with elevation ranging from 209 to 213 feet above mean sea level. The project site
is not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as having a high
potential for seismically induced landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with project development as
they may relate to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could, in theory, undermine structures and
minor slopes during development of the project site. However, compliance with existing regulatory
requirements, such as the implementation of grading erosion control measures specified in the CBC and
the CMC, would reduce erosion and the loss of topsoil.
Examples of these control measures are best management practices such as hydroseeding or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets; vegetated swales, silt fences, or other forms of protection at
storm drain inlets; post-construction inspection of drainage structures for accumulated sediment; and
post-construction clearing of debris and sediment from these structures.
Section 16.08.110 of the CMC requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans for all projects subject to City-issued grading permits, which would minimize the removal of
topsoil, avoid overly steep cut and/or fill slopes, and protect existing vegetation during grading operations.
These requirements are broadly applicable to residential development projects. Adherence to these
regulations would help ensure that the impacts of project development as they relate to substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed in criterion (a), the project site is not located within an area mapped as having significant
potential for seismically induced liquefaction. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of
lateral spreading at the site would also be low. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they
relate to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant.
The project site is generally flat with an average elevation of 213 feet above mean sea level. The
properties surrounding the project site are also typified by low topographic relief. The impacts of project
development as they relate to landslides would be less than significant.
CC 03-03-20
366 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-36 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content.
When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture
that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility
leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and
changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special
building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils
are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite,
smectite, or bentonite clay.
The proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in CMC Chapter
12.04 and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains
specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and
also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Thus, compliance with existing
regulations and policies would ensure that the potential future development impacts permitted under the
proposed project would be reduced. Therefore, the impacts of project development due to expansive soils
are considered less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The development of the proposed project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
As discussed above in existing conditions, while no paleontological resources have been identified on the
project site, because the proposed project requires substantial excavation that could reach significant
depths below the ground surface where no such excavation has previously occurred, there could be fossils
of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that have not been recorded. Such
ground-disturbing construction associated with development under the proposed project could cause
damage to, or destruction of, paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Impacts to
paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading,
demolition, and construction plans:
CC 03-03-20
367 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-37
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or
building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved
qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the
potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare
an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the
resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to implementation.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the cumulative impacts from
greenhouse gas emissions associated with General Plan buildout, including intensified development of the
project site. GHG emissions impacts under the General Plan EIR are less than significant.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing commercial building (Goodyear Tire) generates GHG emissions from transportation sources,
energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment. Current
land uses generate approximately 98 average daily trips.86 GHG emissions generated by the existing land
uses are shown in Table 4-6 below.
86 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation
Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
368 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-38 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change;
therefore, this Section measures the project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact
associated with GHG emissions. Development permitted under the proposed project would contribute to
global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from transportation sources, energy
(natural gas and purchased energy), water use, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. In
addition, construction activities would generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions. The net increase
in emissions generated by the project was evaluated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25. The total
and net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4-6.
TABLE 4-6 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Category
GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Existing
Emissions
Project
Emissions
Net Change
from Existing
Area <1 <1 <1
Energy 14 326 313
On-Road Mobile Sources 34 861 828
Waste 7 106 99
Water/Wastewater <1 5 5
Amortized Construction Emissions N/A 28 28
Total 54 1,299 1,272
BAAQMD Emissions Threshold (MTCO2e) 1,100
Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? Yes
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. N/A = not applicable. New buildings would be constructed to the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2020) at a minimum. Existing buildings were constructed prior to the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards;
and therefore, the “historic” rates in CalEEMod, which are based on the 2005 Standards, were used to estimate existing building energy use.
Transportation emissions include transportation demand management measures, such as the trip reduction program, required under the Bay Area
Commuter Benefits Program.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25.
Construction Impacts
BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, however, the
BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur
during construction and make a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG
emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. GHG emissions from construction activities
are one-time, short-term emissions and therefore, would not significantly contribute to long-term
cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project. One-time, short-term emissions are
converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings
CC 03-03-20
369 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-39
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30-year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new
building requires the first major renovation.87 As shown in Table 4-6 above, when amortized over a 30-
year project lifetime, average annual construction emissions from the proposed project of 28 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/year) would represent a nominal source of GHG emissions
and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/year. Construction emissions would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Operational Impacts
Because the project’s net increase in long-term emissions of 1,272 MTCO2e exceeds BAAQMD’s bright-line
threshold88 of 1,100 MTCO2e per year, as shown in Table 4-6 above, the following mitigation measure is
proposed.
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall offset a minimum of 173 metric tons metric
tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year for a period of 30 years (5,190
MTCO2e) through the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets (i.e., not compliance offsets) from the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved Offset Project Registries (i.e., Climate Action Reserve,
Verra , American Carbon Registry) or forecasted mitigation units (FMUs) (GHG Mitigation Credits) from
the Climate Action Reserve’s Climate Forward program. The voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs must
be real, additional, permanent, confirmable, and enforceable. The order of preference for purchase of
voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs shall be as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Evidence
of payments, and funding of an escrow-type account or endowment fund shall be submitted to the
City by the project applicant. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant
shall submit to the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee, the necessary
documentation to verify the agreement to purchase the necessary voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs
to offset project emissions to below 1,100 MTCO2e per year.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require the purchase of voluntary carbon credits or FMUs to offset
project-generated emissions by 5,190 MTCO2e (173 MTCO2e over the hotel building’s lifetime of 30 years).
As a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, emissions from the proposed project would
not exceed the BAAQMD’s bright-line threshold. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
87 International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New
Buildings, March.
88 A bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard in the United States, composed of objective
factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and
consistent results in its application.
CC 03-03-20
370 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-40 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the CARB Scoping Plan, Plan
Bay Area 2040, and Cupertino’s CAP. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.
CARB’s Scoping Plan
In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 and SB 32 the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan 89 (Scoping
Plan) outlines the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent
reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030. The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not
directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the
primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG
reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest Scoping Plan (2017) include implementing SB
350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy
efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the
Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the
Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy,
which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon
emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; 2030; continuing to implement SB 375with Statewide
measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. For example, as utility companies
comply with the State’s renewable portfolio standards described above, individual developments, like the
proposed project, that use the energy generated by the utility companies will be using energy sources
that are in compliance with the renewable portfolio standards. Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant.
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area. As
previously described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is located in the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas PDA. The proposed
project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of
the City that has access to existing infrastructure and services, including transit service. As discussed in
Section XII, Population and Housing, growth associated with the proposed project is consistent with ABAG
projections and would not exceed regional population and employment projects. Additionally, the
proposed project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program (see Section
3.2.2.3, Transportation Demand Management Program, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial
Study), that would include a shuttle service for hotel employees and guests. Therefore, the proposed
89 Note that the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is an update to the 2008 and 2014 Scoping Plans.
CC 03-03-20
371 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-41
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
project would not conflict with the land use concept plan for the City of Cupertino identified in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 and the impact would be less than significant.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino CAP is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the
City’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for
future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy,
transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.
The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City followed the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011)
and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by
the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the
goals of CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan. Since the adoption of the CAP in January of 2015, the Legislature
adopted SB 32 (September 2016) and CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (December
2017), aimed at meeting SB 32’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
A qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the following elements,
described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. BAAQMD’s revised CEQA Guidelines provides the
methodology to determine if a GHG reduction strategy meets these requirements. The following includes
a description of the BAAQMD methodology and how the Cupertino CAP meets the requirement.
1. Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from
activities within a defined geographic area.
Cupertino’s CAP identifies a baseline GHG emissions inventory for year 2010 and business-as-
usual forecasts for 2020, 2035, and 2050 for land uses within the City.
2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
The City has established a goal of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 35 percent below
2005 levels by 2035. The 2020 GHG reduction goal is in line with AB 32. However, the 2030 goal
was adopted prior to SB 32.
3. Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area.
The GHG emissions sources calculated in the baseline GHG emissions inventory include
commercial, residential, and industrial electricity and natural gas use, on-road transportation,
solid waste disposal, energy use related to water and wastewater, agricultural off-road equipment
and emissions associated with fertilizer application, and off-road equipment use for construction
and lawn and garden activities. GHG emissions from these activities were calculated from activity
CC 03-03-20
372 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-42 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
data such as kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, tons of waste disposed, and
vehicle miles traveled from trips with an origin or destination in Cupertino.
4. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified
emissions level.
The Cupertino CAP has identified groups of measures and performance standards aimed at
achieving these targets: Reduce Energy Use/Improve Facilities; Encourage Alternative
Transportation/Convert Vehicle Fleet; Conserve Potable Water; Reduce Solid Waste; and Expand
Green Infrastructure. The Cupertino CAP strategies achieve the near-term (i.e., 2020) GHG
reduction target. Strategies for the post-2020 targets were not quantified.
5. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the target GHG emissions
level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.
The City has a sustainability division that implements and tracks the City’s GHG reduction
strategies and progress toward GHG reduction targets. The City’s sustainability division prepares
annual reports on CAP implementation and progress as part of the monitoring program, including
projects and policies, data and metrics, as well as inventory updates to determine if the CAP is
achieving its targeted goals.
6. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The City’s 2015 addendum to General Plan EIR 90 demonstrated that that adoption of the
Cupertino CAP would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the
environment that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR certified in 2014.91
Based on the analysis above, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan for the AB 32 targets.
In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it does not
conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. The adopted GHG
reduction measures applicable to the proposed project include the following:
Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase resident and building owner/tenant/operator
knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used.
Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7: Implement water conservation policies contained within Cupertino’s Urban
Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per capita water reduction by 2020.
Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion community-wide through
preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.
90 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final
Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. October 2015.
91 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014.
CC 03-03-20
373 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-43
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Continue to enforce diversion
requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and Green Building Ordinances.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, energy conservation measures would be used as part of
interior lighting for the new building, such as employing automatic sensors to turn off lights when guests
are not present in guest rooms and various glazing treatments on exterior facades. The project
incorporates water conservation features for on-site irrigation. The irrigation water on the site would be
dual-sourced recycled water and potable water as available from the LASD. Any lawn areas would use 100
percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape
Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water
conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The project would
also comply with CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, and
the City’s Zero Waste Policy. Additionally, the proposed project would include a photovoltaic system that
would offset GHG emissions from electricity generated by the project.
Development in the Cupertino, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to City-adopted
policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The City ensures that the provisions of
the Cupertino CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and
applications of conditions of approval as applicable. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials,
substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?
CC 03-03-20
374 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-44 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressees the hazards- and
hazardous materials-related impacts as a result of intensified development in Cupertino. Impacts are
found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation measures to ensure that
development on sites with known hazardous contamination would be less than significant. General Plan
EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b are required to be implemented for sites with known
contamination and potential residual contamination. As discussed in Chapter 4.7, the project site is not
listed as a site with known contamination or potential residual contamination; therefore, the identified
mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR do not apply to the proposed project. The following is a
summary of Section, 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.7.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated August 8, 2018 was prepared for the project site by
AEI Consultants. 92 The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify potential Recognized Environmental
Conditions (RECs) associated with the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in the
vicinity of the project site. Note that the Phase I ESA also evaluated Controlled RECs, which are locations
where the past release of hazardous materials has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject
to the implementation of required controls, and Historical RECs, which are also satisfactorily addressed
but are not subject to any required controls. The Phase I ESA
With respect to the UST, as part of the Phase II ESA, ARTI performed a geophysical survey within
accessible areas of the site to evaluate the presence of the 200-gallon waste oil UST. The ground
penetrating radar, also referred to as “GPR,” method used did not identify any anomalies or signatures
from the scans that would suggest the presence of the UST.
The Phase II ESA included seven soil boring samples and two soil vapor samplings. The Phase II ESA
determined that very low detectable concentrations of diesel, motor oil, Volatile Organic Compounds
92 Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI), 2018, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil & Vapor Sampling
Results, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California. October 26, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
375 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-45
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
(VOCs), and PCB contaminants were reported in the seven soil borings. However, these soil concentrations
were determined to be below the San Francisco Regional Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tier 1
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The soil vapor samplings indicated relatively low levels of VOCs,
which are also below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs for soil gas. 93, 94
The Nimitz and Louis E. Stocklmier Elementary Schools are located about 1 mile to the north, the
Homestead High School and Cupertino Middle School are approximately 0.75 miles and 1.5 miles west,
respectively and the Saint Joseph Cupertino School and William Faria Elementary School are located
approximately 0.8 miles and 1.6 miles to the south, respectively. The nearest public airports are San Jose
International Airport, approximately 6 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.3
miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to
the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 5.6 miles to the southeast. The project
site is not located in within an airport land use plan. The site is not in a State Responsibility Area for
wildfires, and there are no moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones in the Local
Responsibility Areas in the vicinity of the project site.95
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction Impacts
Construction activities at the project site would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials
than would operation of the proposed project, such as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and
construction equipment, and coatings used in construction, which would be transported to the site
periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous
materials would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities on-site to pose a significant hazard to
public health and safety or the environment, and their use during construction would be short-term.
Additionally, as with proposed project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction-related
hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with
applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials
93 Tier 1 ESLs are used as a general screening guide to determine whether additional investigation, remedial actions, or risk
assessment may be required. The Tier 1 ESLs are conservative, and are based on the lowest exposure pathway of concern,
whether it is direct human exposure in residential land use, construction worker exposure, potential leaching of contaminants to
shallow groundwater, open space terrestrial habitat, or other exposure pathways.
94 Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI), 2018, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil & Vapor Sampling
Results, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California. October 26, 2018.
95 CAL FIRE, 2019, http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer_launch, accessed on January 6, 2019, and Santa Clara
County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area,
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/santa_clara/fhszl_map.43.pdf, accessed on August 31, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
376 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-46 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and
would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Consequently, associated impacts from
construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The proposed hotel would not involve the routine transport or disposing of hazardous materials. Project
operation would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance
purposes, such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers. These potentially hazardous materials
would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health
and safety or the environment. Furthermore, such substances would be used, transported, stored, and
disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Any
businesses that transport, generate, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials in Cupertino are subject
to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division and hazardous materials
permits from the SCCFD. The SCCFD also conducts inspections for fire safety and hazardous materials
management of businesses and multi-family dwellings, in accordance with the City of Cupertino
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance in Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.12, Hazardous
Materials Storage. Thus, associated impacts from the operational phase of the project would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
As described in criterion (a) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would involve the
storage and use of common cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints, and solvents, as
well as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in
construction. As described in the existing conditions, the existing building was developed in 1971 to 1972
and the Phase I ESA identified that, although all suspect ACMs and LBP are in good condition and do not
currently pose a health or safety concern, the demolition of the building could release these hazardous
materials. An impact could occur if construction and operation of the proposed project creates conditions
where hazardous materials could contaminate surrounding soil, water, or air. The most likely scenarios
would be demolition and rainwater runoff spreading contaminated materials. Stormwater runoff is
discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study and impacts were found to be
less than significant.
Construction Impacts
The type of construction materials and equipment would be considered standard for this type of
development. All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be
CC 03-03-20
377 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-47
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance
with applicable State and local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and
disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all
emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the duration of the
construction of each individual development project.96 As described in the existing conditions discussion
above, the Phase II, identified very low detectable concentrations of diesel, motor oil, VOCs, and PCB
contaminants, which were below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs and Soil Gas ESLs. Accordingly,
no construction related impacts are anticipated from these sources. Furthermore, the geophysical survey,
which applied the GDR method, did not identify any USTs.97 However, due to the relatively small size
(approximately 2 feet by 4 feet) of the 200-gallon waste oil UST there is the remote possibility that the
geophysical survey could miss the single UST that EDR records show was installed at the project site in
1973, but has no record of its removal. In the unlikely event that the UST is encountered during site
grading and excavation activities, it would be required to be removed in accordance with the existing
standards and regulations of, and oversight by, the SCCFD, based on compliance authority granted through
the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Underground Tank Regulations. Under
these regulations, soil samples from areas where USTs have been removed or where soil contamination is
suspected would be required to be analyzed for hydrocarbons including gasoline and diesel in accordance
with procedures set forth by SCCFD. If hydrocarbons are identified in the soil, the appropriate
response/remedial measures would be required to be implemented as directed by SCCFD with support
review from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB until all specified requirements are satisfied and a Tank Closure
Letter is issued. Compliance requirements relative to the removal/closure of storage tanks are set forth
through the California Health and Safety Code, Sections 25280 through 25299. It is important to note that
although future soil samples could be required consistent with requirements if the UST is encountered,
soil samples have already been tested and found to be below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs
and Soil Gas ESLs.
The Phase I ESA revealed visible evidence that ACMs and LBPs in good condition are present on the
project site. Removal these types of hazardous materials by contractors licensed to remove and handle
these materials would be conducted in accordance with existing federal, State, and local regulations,
including the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (Code of Federal Regulation Part 61), BAAQMD’s Regulation 11, Title 8 of the California
Codes of Regulations, the Unified Program, and the City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element Policy
HS-6.1, and would ensure that risks associates with the transport, storage, use, and disposal of such
materials would be reduced to the maximum extent practical.
96 Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Division B11, Chapter XIII (Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance), Chapter XIV
(Toxic Gas Ordinance).
97 Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI), 2018, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil & Vapor Sampling
Results, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California. October 26, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
378 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-48 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Based on the findings of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs, and compliance with mandatory regulations,
associated impacts from the demolition phase of the project would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
Operational Impacts
The proposed hotel is not considered the type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat
to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. The Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) for Santa Clara County including the City of Cupertino and is responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95
of the California Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is required to regulate hazardous materials business
plans (HMBP) and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, USTs , and risk-management
plans. The HMBP is required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks
of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of on development sites. The HMBP also contains an
emergency-response plan, which describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release,
procedures, and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and
provisions for immediate notification of the California Emergency Management Agency and other
emergency-response personnel, such as the SCCFD. Implementation of the emergency response plan
facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse
impacts. Furthermore, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials
Compliance Division is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections to ensure compliance with
existing laws and regulations; to identify safety hazards that could cause or contribute to an accidental
spill or release; and to suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill or release of
hazardous substances. Mandatory compliance with these regulations would ensure that the risk of
accidents and spills is minimized to the maximum extent practicable during the operation of the proposed
project. Consequently, associated impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. Thus, no impact would
occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
As stated in the existing conditions discussion above, the project site was not identified as being on a
listed as a site pursuant to California Government Code Section 65952.5. The Phase I ESA prepared for the
project site documents the past and present use of hazardous materials at the project site by the existing
automotive service facility. The Phase II ESA concluded that all such materials were below the significance
CC 03-03-20
379 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-49
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
thresholds and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Accordingly,
impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people living or working in the project area?
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public use airport. Thus, there
would be no impact related to public airport hazards.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to
disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara
County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)98
establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within
the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications
with county and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and
management of volunteers.
The proposed project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding
properties or neighborhoods. Emergency vehicle access would be provided at two points located on
North De Anza Boulevard: one located at the northern end of the project site and one located at the
southern end of the project site. During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials
would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would
be clearly marked, and construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards.
No staging would occur in the public right-of-way. A combination of on- and off-site parking facilities for
construction workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and construction. The proposed
project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is fully developed and is surrounded by built-out urban use. The site is not in a State
Responsibility Area for wildfires.99 There are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local
Responsibility Areas of Cupertino and there are no high or very high fire risk areas as shown on the City’s
98 City of Cupertino, Office of Emergency Services. Emergency Operations Plan. September 2005.
99 CAL FIRE, 2019, http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer_launch, accessed on January 6, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
380 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-50 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
adopted Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map.100 The proposed project would not subject people or
structures to wildfire hazards, and no impact would occur.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the hydrology- and water
quality-related impacts as a result of intensified development of the project site. These impacts are
identified as less than significant in the General Plan EIR. The following is a summary of Section, 4.8.1.2,
Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.8.
100 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.74. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area.
CC 03-03-20
381 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-51
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site lies within the Sunnyvale East Channel watershed. No creeks are present on the project
site. In addition to the natural drainage system, a network of storm drains collects runoff from city streets
and carries it to the creeks and San Francisco Bay.
The City of Cupertino Department of Public Works is responsible for the design, construction, and
maintenance of City-owned facilities including public streets, sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm drains. The
capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino was evaluated and documented in the
2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies the areas within the system that do not have the capacity
to handle runoff during the 10-year storm event, which is the City’s design standard. As described in the
2018 Strom Drain Master Plan, the project site is located in an area where the storm drains are deficient
in conveying water from a 10-year storm. The lines on Homestead Road, from Sunnyvale East Channel to
De Anza Boulevard are currently under capacity and designated as low priority for replacement.101
The project site, as well as the entire city, is within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley
Groundwater Basin. In 2012, approximately 40 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County was
pumped from groundwater.102 The depth of groundwater is estimated to be 125 feet below ground
surface or deeper. 103 The rest of the water used in the County is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD), which receives surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central
Valley Project (CVP). Additional details on water usage and local water purveyors are provided in Section
XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study.
Santa Clara Valley streams do not receive discharges from industrial or municipal wastewater.104 Industrial
discharges are routed to municipal sanitary sewers and then to regional municipal wastewater treatment
plants that discharge treated effluent to the tidal sloughs of San Francisco Bay. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States from their
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Municipal storm water discharges in the City of
Cupertino are subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the new Municipal Regional Permit (MRP;
Order Number R2-2015-0049) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which became effective on January
1, 2016. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic
resources must comply with the requirements of the State Water Regional Water Control Board (SWRCB)
Construction General Permit (2009-0009-DWQ) as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ.
Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the
101 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
102 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012.
103 AEI Consultants, 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, Santa Clara
County, California. August 8, 2018.
104 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative, 2003. Volume 1, Watershed Characteristics Report, http://www.scbwmi.org/
accessed May 30, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
382 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-52 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site
map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The
PRDs are now submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report
Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitors surface water quality
through implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan)
and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley.
The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara
subbasin is generally considered to be good and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of
the County water supply wells without the use of treatment methods.105
The City of Cupertino is more than 8 miles south of San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet above
mean sea level, which places the city at a distance that is considered too far to be affected by a
tsunami.106 There are no large bodies of water within the City of Cupertino or near the project site; thus,
the project site would not be impacted by a seiche.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Because the project would disturb one or more acres during construction, the project applicant would be
required to comply with State’s Construction General Permit and submit PRDs to the SWRCB prior to the
start of construction. The PRDs include a NOI and a site-specific construction SWPPP that describes the
incorporation of best management practices to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials
contamination of runoff during construction. New requirements by the SWRCB would also require the
project applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes post construction treatment measures
aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. With implementation of these measures, water quality impacts
during construction would be less than significant.
In addition, all new development or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square
feet or more of impervious surfaces would be required to incorporate source control, site design, and
stormwater treatment measures into the project, pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements. The requirements include minimization of impervious
surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions,
and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in
perpetuity. The proposed project would provide several bioretention water treatment areas at ground
105 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan.
106 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map.
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed May 30, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
383 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-53
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
level, as raised flow-through planters, and drainage management areas throughout the project site.
Implementation of this measures and compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure
that post-development impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Adherence to applicable water quality regulations, preparation of a SWPPP, implementation of best
management practices during construction, and compliance with the CMC would ensure that water
quality standards are not violated during construction. Implementation of stormwater site design, source
control and stormwater treatment measures and compliance with C.3 provisions of the MRP and the City
of Cupertino’s stormwater requirements would result in less-than-significant impacts during operation of
the project. Consequently, potential impacts associated with water quality during construction and
operation would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
The project would be connected to municipal water supplies and does not propose any groundwater wells
on the property. Water is supplied to the project site by California Water Service Company (Cal Water),
which obtains its water from groundwater production (35 percent) and purchases of surface water from
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Los Altos Suburban
District, which includes the area for the project site, states that there is sufficient water for their
customers for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years and that additional groundwater can be pumped
to meet demand through 2040.107 Therefore, the project would not result in a depletion of groundwater
supplies or result in a lowering of groundwater levels. Water supply is discussed in Section XVII, Utilities
and Service Systems, below. Furthermore, due to the project’s location, the development of the proposed
project would not interfere with groundwater recharge that takes place in the McClellan Ponds recharge
facility located within the City of Cupertino or the creeks and streams that run through the city. Therefore,
the project would have a less-than-significant impact to groundwater recharge.
The proposed project would be located on a site that is already developed and currently has a high
percentage of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of
impervious surfaces from 38,380 square feet to 49,918 square feet. The project would install several
bioretention areas, which would contribute to groundwater recharge by infiltration. The use of site design
features required by provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and compliance with the City of
Cupertino General Plan policies would reduce the impact of increased impervious surfaces on
groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on
groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge, and no mitigation measures are needed.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
107 California Water Service Company, 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos Suburban District.
CC 03-03-20
384 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-54 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site;
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed project would take place within the boundaries of a fully developed site that is currently
connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed redevelopment does not involve the alteration
of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse.
As described in the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, the project site is located in an area where the storm
drains are insufficient in size to convey water from a 10-year storm. The lines on Homestead Road, from
Sunnyvale East Channel to De Anza Boulevard are currently under capacity and designated as low priority
for replacement.108 However, the proposed project would not exacerbate this existing condition. The
proposed project would provide several bioretention and flow-through planter water treatment areas on
the project site and would provide other detention facilities that would meter the peak runoff from the
site for a 10-year storm event. These would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, sidewalks and
streets for treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the on-site storm drain system, which
connects to the City’s storm drain system in North De Anza Boulevard. When combined, the on-site water
treatment areas would meet the C.3 of the MRP required treatment areas of 1,997 square feet.
The project applicant would be required, pursuant to the C.3 provisions of the MRP, to implement
construction phase best management practices, post-construction design measures that encourage
infiltration in pervious areas, and post-construction source control measures to help keep pollutants out
of stormwater. In addition, post-construction stormwater treatment measures would be required since
the project would create and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. These
measures would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the project.
During construction, the project applicant would be subject to the NPDES construction permit
requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes erosion and sediment control
measures to stabilize the site, protect slopes and channels, control the perimeter of the site, minimize the
area and duration of exposed soils, and protect receiving waters adjacent to the site.
Once constructed, the requirements for new development or redevelopment projects, include source
control measures and site design measures that address stormwater runoff, and would reduce the
potential for erosion or siltation. In addition, Provision C.3 of the MRP would require the project to
implement stormwater treatment measures to contain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria
based on volume and flow rate. With implementation of these erosion and sediment control measures
and regulatory provisions to limit runoff for new development sites, the proposed project would not result
108 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
CC 03-03-20
385 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-55
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
in significant increases in erosion and sedimentation or contribute to flooding on-site or off-site and
impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk the release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
The project site is not located in close proximity to San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean, and is not
within a mapped tsunami inundation zone.109 Because there are no large bodies of water, such as
reservoirs or lakes, in the vicinity of the project site, there would be no potential for seiches to impact the
project site. In addition, the site is in a relatively flat area of the City and is outside of the ABAG mapped
zones for earthquake-induced landslides or debris flow source areas.110 Therefore, no impact would occur
with respect to the release of pollutants from these types of natural hazard events.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is not within the purview of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, also referred to as the “Basin Plan” and designates beneficial
uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. The Basin Plan also contains
water quality criteria for groundwater.
As required by storm water management guidelines discussed under criterion (a), best management
practices and low impact development measures would be implemented across the project site during
both construction and operation of the proposed project. These measures would control and prevent the
release of sediment, debris, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. Implementation of best
management practices during construction would be in accordance with the provisions of the SWPPP,
which would minimize the release of sediment, soil, and other pollutants. Operational best management
practices would be required to meet the C.3 provisions of the MRP. These best management practices
include the incorporation of site design, source control, and treatment control measures to treat and
control runoff before it enters the storm drain system. The proposed treatment measures would include
the use of several bioretention areas to treat and detain runoff prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain
system. Additionally, as discussed in criterion (b), the project would be connected to municipal water
supplies and does not propose any groundwater wells on the property. The depth of groundwater is
estimated to be 125 feet below ground surface or deeper and the proposed project would not disturb
groundwater during construction. With implementation of these best management practices and low
impact development measures in accordance with City and MRP requirements, the potential impact on
109 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2019. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map.
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed on January 6, 2019.
110 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2019. Rainfall-Induced Landslides, Debris Flow Source Areas and Earthquake
Induced Landslides. Accessed at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/landslides/ on January 6, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
386 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-56 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
water quality would be less than significant. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct the implementation of the Basin Plan.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the General Plan EIR, impacts are determined to be
less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The following is a summary
of Section, 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.9.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial/Residential and the project site is
within the General Commercial with special development regulations (CG-rg) Zoning District. A complete
description of the Commercial/Residential land use designation and (CG-rg) Zoning District is presented in
Section 3.1.4, Land Use Designation and Zoning, in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Because the development of the proposed project would occur on a site that is currently developed,
would retain the existing roadway patterns, and would not introduce any new major roadways or other
physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create new
barriers, the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
As previously described, a General Plan Amendment Authorization resolution was adopted by City Council
that allows the project applicant to apply for a General Plan Amendment Plan to increase the hotel
development allocation up to 156 rooms, increase the height, and reduce the building plane setback
CC 03-03-20
387 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-57
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
requirements in the Homestead Special Area and North De Anza Gateway.111 The proposed project is
within the parameters evaluated in the General Plan EIR (145 feet compared to 88 feet at the highest
point and 250 rooms compared to 156 rooms) and the General Plan EIR found land use impacts to be less
than significant. The proposed hotel would be consistent with the types of development envisioned in the
Homestead Special Area and North De Anza Gateway. Accordingly, the proposed project would also result
in less-than-significant impacts with regard to conflicts with land use plans.
XI. NOISE
Would the proposed project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal
standards?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the noise and vibration impacts associated with
intensified development of the project site. The following is a summary of Section, 4.10.1.3, Existing
Conditions, of Chapter 4.10.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including
hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these
known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Cupertino have
established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human
activities. Noise-related terminology/descriptors, pertinent existing regulations and Cupertino General
Plan Health and Safety Element guidelines, calculations for traffic noise levels, and calculations for
construction noise and vibration levels can be found in Appendix C, Noise Data, of this Initial Study.
111 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and
Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
388 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-58 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The principal noise sources affecting the project site are traffic noise from I-280, De Anza Boulevard, and
Homestead Road. The nearest public airports are San Jose International Airport, approximately 6 miles to
the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.3 miles to the northwest. The nearest heliports are
McCandless Towers Heliport, approximately 4.5 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center
Heliport, approximately 5.6 miles to the southeast. The nearest private airport is Moffett Federal Airfield,
approximately 4.75 miles to the northwest. The nearest residences (Aviare Apartments) are located
approximately 150 feet east of the project site across De Anza Boulevard. The Cupertino Hotel is adjacent
to the project site to the south.
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, State, or federal standards?
A significant stationary-source impact would occur if the activities or equipment at the proposed project
site produce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors in excess of local standards.
With respect to projected-related increases, noise impacts can be placed into three categories. The first is
“audible” impacts, which refer to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible
increases in general community noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 decibels (dB) or more since
this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The second
category, “potentially audible” impacts, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dB. The last
category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dB that are typically “inaudible” to the human ear
except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at
sensitive receptor locations (i.e., 3 dB or more) are considered potentially significant. Note that a doubling
of traffic flows (i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day) would be needed to create a 3 dB increase
in traffic-generated noise levels. An increase of 3 dB is often used as a threshold for a substantial increase.
Project-Related Construction Noise
In terms of the proposed construction activities, the demolition, grading, and site paving activities are
expected to generate the highest noise levels, since they involve the largest and most powerful
equipment. Construction equipment for the proposed project would include equipment such as concrete
saws, graders, tractors, loaders, backhoes, paving equipment, forklifts, rollers, and a crane.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from
transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use
of construction equipment. The following discusses construction noise impacts to the off-site sensitive
receptors.
CC 03-03-20
389 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-59
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase
noise levels along local roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise
levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would
generally be infrequent and short lived. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic
would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes and no mitigation
measures would be required.
Construction Equipment
According to CMC Section 10.48.053, construction is allowed during “daytime hours” (7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends) and exempt from the City’s
daytime and nighttime maximum noise level limits, provided that such construction activities do not
exceed 80 dBA at the nearest affected property or individual equipment items do not exceed 87 dBA at 25
feet. Only one of these two criteria must be met. In addition, construction is prohibited on holidays and
within 750 feet of residential areas on weekends, holidays, and during the nighttime, unless a special
exception has been granted, and during nighttime hours unless it meets the nighttime noise level
standards. Even with these restrictions, project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise.
However, noise levels would subside again after construction.
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location
relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of
construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from
construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest pieces of equipment. The dominant
equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials)
can also be noticeable.
The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the Leq contributions from
each piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the on-going time-variations of noise
emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer, can have
maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary
considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any given moment. Noise
attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to
accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction
activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a
rate of at least 6 dB per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air
absorption, ground effects, and/or shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive
receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site
with different loads and power requirements. Noise levels from project-related construction activities
were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged
distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site) to the property line of the
CC 03-03-20
390 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-60 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
nearest receptors. Although construction may occur across the entire phase area, the area around the
center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at
the various sensitive receptors.
The expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity using
the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model. The associated, aggregate sound
levels—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 4-7.
TABLE 4-7 PROJECT-RELAT ED CONSTRUCTION NOISE, ENERGY-AVERAGE (LEQ) SOUND LEVELS, DBA
Construction
Activity Phase
Sound Level at Various Distances from Construction Activities, dBA Leq
Residences (East)
225 feeta
Cupertino Hotel (South)
150 feeta
Demolition 72.7 76.2
Site Preparation 70.5 74.0
Grading 72.7 76.2
Building Construction 69.1 72.6
Paving 72.4 75.9
Architectural Coating 60.6 64.1
Note:
a As measured from the acoustical center of the construction site to the nearest property line
Construction activities would increase noise levels at and near the proposed area of improvements. The
highest expected construction-related noise levels—up to approximately 76 dBA Leq—would occur at the
Cupertino Hotel to the south during the paving, demolition, and grading phases, which would be less than
the 80-dBA limit in the CMC. However, construction noise levels would create a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. This would be considered a potentially
significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, project-related construction
noise impacts to the surrounding hotel and residences would be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-1: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the construction phase that would be in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or
federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all demolition, grading, and
construction plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall
take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on weekends. In addition, the construction crew shall adhere to the following best management
practices shall be observed:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition or grading activities, all offsite
businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned
activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would
occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The
CC 03-03-20
391 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-61
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
notification should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan
to the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to
issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with the 80-dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise
Control Plan, including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the permit
application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the
on-site Construction Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following available
controls to comply with the 80 dBA performance standard:
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If
the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project
construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the
maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting
temporary plywood noise barriers between areas where concrete saws will be used and
nearby sensitive receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and
undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive
receptors.
• During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far
from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary
sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
• During the entire active construction period, noisy operations will be conducted
simultaneously to the degree feasible in order to reduce the time periods of these operations.
• Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the
City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction
phase.
• Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and
along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All
other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise
producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning
purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically
CC 03-03-20
392 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-62 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
Project-Related Operational Noise
Stationary Noise
Noise from sources such as people talking, employees using outdoor common areas, or property
maintenance may also contribute to the total noise environment within the direct vicinity of the proposed
project site. However, these are commonly associated with commercial uses that already exist on the
project site. As explained above, noise sources associated with landscape maintenance activities is
exempted from the provisions of the CMC, provided said activities take place between the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Therefore, impacts
from occasional property maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would be less than
significant.
The exterior mechanical and HVAC equipment associated with the proposed use are expected to be
similar to the equipment at surrounding commercial, multi-family residential, and hotel uses. Typical
HVAC units range from approximately 70 to 75 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. Future mechanical
equipment associated with the proposed hotel would be located at least 215 feet from the nearest
residential receptors (Aviare Apartments to the east). At this distance, the sound pressure level associated
with a common central air conditioning unit would be reduced to approximately 38 dBA or less. Future
mechanical equipment associated with the proposed hotel would be located at least 60 feet from the
nearest non-residential receptor (commercial uses to the west). At this distance, the sound pressure level
associated with a common central air conditioning unit would be reduced to approximately 49 dBA or
less. Thus, the noise level associated with future central air conditioning units would be below the
requirements of CMC Section 10.48.040, limiting nighttime noise to 50 dBA at nearby residential uses and
to 55 dBA at non-residential commercial uses. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment would be
within enclosures (see Figure 3-8), which would further attenuate the sound emanating from the
mechanical equipment.
In addition, an emergency backup generator is proposed on the roof inside an enclosure. It is anticipated
that the generator would be power rated at 275 kilowatt (kW) and would only be used during an
emergency power outage or for routine testing (up to 50 hours per year per BAAQMD regulations). A
typical 275 kW generator with a weatherproof enclosure would produce noise levels of approximately 84
dBA at a distance of 23 feet. With a Level II sound attenuation enclosure, a typical 275 kW generator
would produce noise levels of approximately 75 dBA at a distance of 23 feet. The proposed six-foot metal
rooftop panel, shown in Figure 3-8, would provide additional shielding, as might the roof itself depending
upon the final design. However, to provide a conservative assessment of operational noise impacts, these
project features were not factored into the estimated noise level at nearby receptors since the height of
the exhaust/enclosure is unknown at this time. At the nearest non-residential receptor (commercial uses
to the west), noise levels would be reduced to approximately 76 dBA with a weatherproof enclosure and
CC 03-03-20
393 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-63
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
67 dBA with a Level II sound enclosure. In both cases, this would potentially exceed the CMC daytime
noise limit of 65 dBA. The commercial uses to the west would not be any more sensitive during nighttime
hours than daytime hours. At the nearest residential receptors (Aviare Apartments 150 feet to the east),
noise levels would be reduced to approximately 65 dBA with a weatherproof enclosure and 56 dBA with a
Level II sound enclosure. In both cases, this would potentially exceed the CMC nighttime noise limit of 50
dBA for residential receptors. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2, project-related operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the operation phase that would be in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or
federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts
on surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at
residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential
sensitive uses (i.e., the Cupertino Hotel) during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A qualified
acoustical consultant shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to
determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s
noise level requirements. Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on
surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could
include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the
line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Traffic Noise
The peak hour traffic volumes along roadways in the project area were used to analyze traffic noise
increases due to the proposed project. To determine the permanent traffic noise level increase, the
Existing Plus Project peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Existing traffic volumes. The
permanent noise level increase was estimated to be 0.1 dBA on study roadway segments. To determine
the cumulative traffic noise level increase, the Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes 112 were compared
to the Existing traffic volumes. The permanent noise level increase was estimated to be 2.0 dBA or less on
study roadway segments. A noise level increase of 3 dBA Ldn/CNEL is considered barely perceptible in
outdoor environments and would represent a potentially significant noise increase. Because the
permanent noise level increase due to project-generated traffic increase at the surrounding noise-
sensitive receptors would be less than 3 dBA, the proposed project would not cause a substantial
112 Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were obtained from the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact
Analysis, May 22, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
394 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-64 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
permanent noise level increase at the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors and would have a less-than-
significant impact.
b) Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no
notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the project, such as industrial machinery or railroad
operations. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not result in less than significant groundborne
vibration impacts.
Construction Vibration
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. The generation of
vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and
perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4-8 lists reference
vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment.
TABLE 4-8 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Equipment Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Note:
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018.
Proposed construction would include grading, which would include equipment such as loaders. Paving
activities may also generate high levels of construction vibration and would include equipment such as
pavers and rollers. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table 4-8 and
the construction vibration assessment guidelines published by the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA),
the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project were assessed in terms of potential
architectural damage due to vibration.
The City does not have specific, vibration-related standards. Thus, project-related construction vibration
was evaluated for its potential to cause minor architectural damage based on FTA ’s architectural damage
criteria. The term ‘architectural damage’ is defined as minor surface cracks (in plaster, drywall, tile, or
CC 03-03-20
395 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-65
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
stucco) or the sticking of doors and windows. This is below the severity of ‘structural damage’ which
entails the compromising of structural soundness or the threatening the basic integrity of the building
shell. Building damage is typically not a concern for most projects, with the occasional exception of
blasting and pile driving during construction. No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing
activities would be required during project construction. Since vibration-induced architectural damage
could result from an instantaneous vibration event, distances are measured from the receptor facade to
the nearest location of potential construction activities.
Table 4-9 shows the vibration levels from typical earthmoving construction equipment at the nearest
receptors. For reference, a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.2 inches/second (in/sec) is used as the
threshold for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings” (which would apply to the surrounding
structures). Small construction equipment generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet
away.
TABLE 4-9 ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE VIBRATION LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second
Residences (East)
160 feet
Commercial (West)
50 feet
Cupertino Inn (South)
75 feet
Vibratory Rollera 0.01 0.07 0.04
Large Bulldozer 0.01 0.03 0.02
Loaded Trucks 0.01 0.03 0.02
Jackhammer <0.01 0.01 0.01
Small Bulldozer <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Notes: Distances are from the nearest portion of potential construction activity to the nearest receptor building within each land use
type.
a. This analysis shows a “vibratory roller”, which may be more vibration-intensive than the roller used during the paving phase
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018.
Construction-generated vibration levels at the nearest receptors would be less than the 0.02 in/sec PPV
vibration damage criteria for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings,” per FTA guidelines. Impacts
related to architectural damage due to construction vibration would be less than significant and mitigation
is not necessary.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The
nearest aviation facility is the Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately 4.75 miles to the northwest. At this
distance from the aviation facilities, the proposed project would not expose residents or patrons to
CC 03-03-20
396 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-66 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
excessive noise levels from aircraft noise. No impacts related to noise from public or private airports or
strips would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth or growth for
which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were determined
to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The General Plan
would introduce approximately 16,855 new jobs113 to Cupertino. These new jobs combined with existing
conditions would result in 44,242 jobs at the 2040 buildout horizon. The proposed project is anticipated
to be completed by 2022. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, according to the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), Cupertino is projected to have 62,500 residents and 30,110 jobs by 2020 and
66,800 residents and 31,370 jobs by 2030.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There is no population on-site, because the site is currently developed with commercial uses. The existing
building is currently occupied with a Goodyear Tire, which provides new tires, tire repairs, oil changes, and
other automotive care services and provides about 10 jobs.114
113 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by
300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs;
and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs.
114 Personal communication between PlaceWorks and Goodyear Auto Service Center on January 9, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
397 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-67
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate
planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project would construct a 156-room hotel and would not directly result in any additional
new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan.
Persons staying temporarily in a place, such as the proposed hotel, are not considered permanent
residents. Thus, the proposed project would not directly increase permanent population through guests
at the hotel. In addition, the proposed project is not a regionally significant employer, and it is anticipated
that future employees of the proposed project would come from Cupertino and the surrounding Bay Area
communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any demand for housing built elsewhere
resulting in a physical impact to the environment. The project would be required to contribute to the
City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing mitigation fee program, prior to issuance of construction
permits.115 The construction of any BMR housing would undergo its own environmental review and
clearance through a separate process.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the operation of the project is
estimated to generate up to 78 employees on the project site. As described in the discussion of Existing
Conditions, above, the existing automotive service center on the site has 10 employees, resulting in about
68 net new employees on the site. According to the ABAG, Cupertino is projected to have 30,110 jobs by
2020 and 31,370 jobs by 2030, which is about the time project would be completed (i.e., 2022). The
estimated 68 net new jobs generated by project operation would be well within forecast employment
increases in Cupertino. The proposed project’s potential impact on growth from new employment would
be less than significant.
In addition, the proposed project does not include the construction of infrastructure or roads which
would indirectly induce additional population growth. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-
significant impact due to inducement of unplanned growth. No mitigation measures would be required.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site does not contain any residential units and would not displace housing. Therefore, the
project would have no impact associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of housing.
115 City of Cupertino, Housing Division. 2015. City of Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program
Procedural Manual.
CC 03-03-20
398 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-68 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Libraries?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were
determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The public service providers for the project site are as follows:
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection,
emergency, medical, and hazardous material services.
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West
Valley Patrol Division for police protection services.
The project site is within the Cupertino Union School District.
The Santa Clara County Library District governs and administers seven community libraries, one
branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24-7 online library for all library
users. The closest library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in
Cupertino.
A relevant discussion of the existing conditions for each of these service providers is provided in Chapter
4.12 of the General Plan EIR.
CC 03-03-20
399 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-69
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, and
libraries?
The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with
physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities may need improvements (i.e., construction,
renovation or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by
increases in population. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would
exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction
of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.
As discussed above in Section XII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in a
156-room hotel and no new permanent residents. The proposed project is within the 1,339-hotel-room
maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any additional new
population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General Plan EIR.
Because impacts to public service providers were determined to be less than significant in the General
Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR,
impacts to public services providers as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant.
No mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the property tax generated from the proposed
hotel would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to maintain some City services.
Likewise, and pursuant to SB 50,116 the project applicant would be required to pay the school impact fees
required for commercial development, and any impacts to the Cupertino Union School District would be
less than significant.
XIV. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
116 SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section
17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries.
CC 03-03-20
400 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-70 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational
facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park
and recreational facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As discussed in Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, impacts were
determined to be less than significant as a result of intensified development of the project site. The
General Plan EIR evaluates a project that is greater than that of the proposed project.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s
16 parks, five special use sites, nine school sports fields, and 3 trail corridors.117 The City of Cupertino has
an adopted parkland dedication standard of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. There is a
total of approximately 224 acres of parkland in Cupertino, or approximately 3.8 acres per 1,000 residents,
based on an existing population of 58,302. The closest neighborhood park is Franco Park approximately
0.5 miles to the west.
Regional park facilities operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the
Santa Clara County Parks could be used by guests of the proposed project. The closest MROSD parks to
Cupertino are the Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonia, which are located just
southwest and west of the city boundaries, respectively. Santa Clara County Park facilities that serve
Cupertino include Rancho San Antonio County Park, south of I-280 and west of Foothill Boulevard, and the
Stevens Creek County Park.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project would increase the number of persons and level of activity of the project site;
however, no families with children or other permanent residents that are assumed to frequently use the
existing neighborhood and regional parks would be introduced as a result of the proposed hotel.
Accordingly, the project is not expected to significantly increase the use of any existing neighborhood and
117 Draft City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. 2019.
CC 03-03-20
401 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-71
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
regional parks, or other recreational facilities and no new facilities would be required to meet the
demand.
As described above in Section XII, Population and Housing, the estimated 78 employees would likely be
residents of Cupertino or the surrounding Bay Area and would not relocate from other locations thereby
generating new population to the city. The proposed project would construct a 156-room hotel, which is
within the 1,339-hotel-room maximum evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in
any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the
General Plan EIR. Because impacts to parks were determined to be less than significant in the General
Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR,
impacts to parks and recreational services as a result of the proposed project would also be less than
significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the Transient Occupancy Tax
generated from the proposed hotel would support the City’s public services funds that are used in part to
maintain the City’s recreational facilities.
b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered
park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts?
As discussed in criterion (a) above, unlike permanent residents in Cupertino, future patrons of the hotel
are not expected to use park and recreational facilities, therefore the proposed project would not result in
substantial deterioration or cause the need for construction of new built facilities beyond the facilities
accounted for in the long-range planning completed for the regional park facilities of the project site. The
Transient Occupancy Tax generated from the proposed hotel would also support the City’s public services
funds that are used in part to maintain the City’s recreational facilities. Because impacts to parks were
determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project is within the
number of hotel rooms evaluated in the General Plan EIR, impacts to parks and recreational services as a
result of the proposed project would also be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be
required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CC 03-03-20
402 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-72 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As discussed in Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Circulation, of the General Plan EIR, traffic impacts were
found to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1
requires the City to commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to
guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts
from future projects based on the then current City standards. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-
1, which was previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the General Plan, will be implemented
by the City.
METHODOLOGY
The following is based on the Transp ortation Impact Analysis (TIA) dated June 13, 2019 prepared for the
proposed project. The TIA is included in Appendix D, Transportation Impact Analysis, of this Initial Study.
The cumulative impacts of the project together with overall General Plan buildout through year 2040
were evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, this Initial Study evaluates the project’s near-
term traffic impacts under the Background conditions when compared to Existing conditions.
The TIA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and following the guidelines of the City of
Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency
for Santa Clara County. The VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) TIA Guidelines (last updated in
October 2014) are guidelines for assessing the transportation impacts of development projects and
identifying whether improvements are needed to adjacent roadways, bike facilities, sidewalks, and transit
services affected by the proposed project. The TIA guidelines have been adopted by local agencies within
Santa Clara County, and are applied to analyze the regional transportation system. For projects that would
generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips, a CMP analysis is not required. Based on trip
generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
10th Edition (2017), it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 1,562 net new daily vehicle
trips, with 73 net new trips occurring during the AM (morning) peak hour and 87 net new trips occurring
during the PM (evening) peak hour. Accordingly, a CMP analysis is not required because the propose
project would generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour trips.
CC 03-03-20
403 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-73
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Significant Impact Criteria
For the purposes of this Initial Study, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized
intersections are based on the City’s level of service standards, also referred to as “LOS” when
accompanied by a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS “A”, or free-flow
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS “F”, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Since the level of
service standards for all signalized intersections within the City of Cupertino are more stringent than the
CMP level of service standard, a separate CMP intersection analysis according to the CMP methodology
was not necessary.
Definition of Significant Intersection Impacts
A project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in
the city of Cupertino if for either AM or PM peak hour:
1. The level of service at the intersection under background conditions drops below its level of service
standard when project traffic is added, or
2. The level of service at the intersection operates below its level of service standard under background
conditions, and the addition of project traffic causes both the critical-movement delay at the
intersection to increase by four (4) or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to
increase by one percent (0.01) or more.
An exception to this criterion 2 above applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of
average delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average delay for critical movements is negative).
In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by 1 percent (0.01) or
more.
Intersection Level of Service
Signalized Study Intersections
The City of Cupertino evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized
intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The
correlation between average control delay and level of service at signalized intersections is shown in
Table 4-10. The City of Cupertino’s level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better.
For the study intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard, the level of service
standard is LOS E+ or better.
CC 03-03-20
404 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-74 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-10 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON CONTROL DELAY
Level of
Service Description
Average Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most Vehicles are during the green phase
and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low
vehicle delay.
10.0 or less
B+
B-
B-
Operations characterized by good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.
10.1 to 12.0
12.1 to 18.0
18.1 to 20.0
C+
C+
C-
Higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.
Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without
stopping.
20.1 to 23.0
23.1 to 32.0
32.1 to 35.0
D+
D+
D-
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result
from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or
high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
35.1 to 39.0
39.1 to 51.0
51.1 to 55.0
E+
E+
E-
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-
capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 60.0
60.1 to 75.0
75.1 to 80.0
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often
occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of
the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contribution causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) page 10 to 16. Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), Table 2. See Table 1 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the
proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
CMP Intersections
The designated level of service methodology for the CMP is also the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
operations method for signalized intersections, using TRAFFIX. The CMP level of service standard for
signalized intersections is LOS E or better. However, the CMP level of service standard for signalized
intersections within City of Cupertino for all signalized intersections, including CMP intersections, is LOS D
or better. As previously state, the level-of-service standard for the study intersection of De Anza Boulevard
and Stevens Creek Boulevard is LOS E+ or better.
Intersection Queuing
The analysis of intersection level of service was supplemented with an analysis of traffic operations for
intersections where the project would add a significant number of left turns. The operations analysis is
based on vehicle queuing for high demand left-turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were
estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of the number of
vehicles for a vehicle movement to determine the average number of vehicles in the queue per lane. The
basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th
CC 03-03-20
405 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-75
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the
estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet
per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned
available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn
pocket storage requirements at signalized intersections.
The 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less
would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length longer than the 95th percentile queue
would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a
60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th percentile queue
length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time. The 95th percentile
queue length is also known as the “design queue length.”
EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
The existing conditions without the proposed project for intersections, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as
well as transit services are discussed below.
Existing without Project Intersection Operations
The results of the intersection level-of-service analysis show that all but one of the study intersections
currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Therefore, all the
study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. The results of the level-of-
service analysis for Existing without Project Conditions are presented in Table 4-11.
TABLE 4-11 EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
ID # Intersection
Jurisdiction/
CMPa
LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hourb Delay LOS
1 North De Anza Boulevard / Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM
PM
37.2
38.7
D+
D+
2 North De Anza Boulevard /I-280 North Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM
PM
21.9
35.5
C+
D+
3 North De Anza Boulevard / I-280 South Ramps Cupertino (CMP) C AM
PM
22.4
21.4
C+
C+
4 North De Anza Boulevard /Mariani Avenue Cupertino D AM
PM
37.4
39.0
D+
D+
5 North De Anza Boulevard /Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) E+ AM
PM
35.5
43.7
D+
D
Notes: All of the study intersections are signalized.
a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections.
b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour.
Source: See Table 3 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, June 2019.
CC 03-03-20
406 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-76 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Existing without Project Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In
the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along both sides of North De Anza Boulevard and
Homestead Road, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site. The project site can be
accessed via the parking lot of the adjacent Homestead Square Shopping Center. Marked crosswalks with
pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided on all approaches of the signalized study
intersections, except the south leg of the North De Anza Boulevard /I-280 northbound ramps intersection
and the north leg of the North De Anza Boulevard /I-280 southbound ramps intersection.
Although some crosswalk connections are missing, the overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the
study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and
other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site.
The 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Pedestrian Plan) contains goals, policies, and specific
recommendations to increase the walkability of Cupertino, including the Pedestrian Guidelines. The
Pedestrian Plan is a companion document to the City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (discussed
below). It includes specific recommendations to improve pedestrian conditions. Consistent with the
Pedestrian Plan and any other applicable recommendations, the project applicant would be required to
contribute to implementing any recommended pedestrian improvements in the project area.
Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities in the study area are Class II bicycle lanes. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) are lanes for
bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings,
pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are generally 5 feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and
vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted. Bike lanes in the area include the following:
North-south bicycle connections in the study area include striped bike lanes along North De Anza
Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road, where they continue into
Sunnyvale.
East-west bicycle connections in the study area consist of striped bike lanes along Homestead Road
between Lafayette Street and Foothill Expressway, Mariani Avenue east of North De Anza Road, and
Stevens Creek Boulevard between Lawrence Expressway and California Oak Way.
In 2016, the City of Cupertino adopted its Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (Bike Plan), which is a
citywide plan to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical and healthy alternative to the use of the family
car. The Bike Plan illustrates Cupertino’s current bicycle network, identifies gaps in the network, and
CC 03-03-20
407 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-77
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
proposes improvement projects to address the identified gaps.118 The Bike Plan includes standards for
engineering, encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure
in the city to enable people to bike to work and school, to utilize a bicycle to run errands, and to enjoy the
health and environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age.
The VTA adopted the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP guides the development of
major bicycle facilities in the County by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other bicycle
projects of countywide or intercity significance. There are no Cross-County Bicycle Corridors in the project
vicinity.
Public Transportation Facilities
Transit Service
Nearby transit services are described below, and Table 4-12 summarizes the destinations, closest stop to
the project site, hours/days of operation, and service frequencies for transit services within walking
distance.
TABLE 4-12 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Routes From To
Distance
to Nearest Stop
Weekdays
Operating
Hoursa
Peak
Headwayb
VTA Local Bus Routes
55 De Anza College Great America
Parkway 0.10 miles (500 feet) 5:38 am to
10:54 pm
15 to 35
minutes
depending on
the stop and
direction
81 Moffett Field/Ames Center San Jose State
University 0.10 miles (500 feet) 6:06 am to
9:04 pm
25 to 35
minutes
depending on
the stop and
direction
Notes: AM = morning commuter period; PM = evening commute period; VTA = Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
a. Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the project site.
b. Headways are defined as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route.
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. June 2019.
118 City of Cupertino, 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Figure 3-7: Bikeway projects.
CC 03-03-20
408 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-78 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Commuter Rail Service
Caltrain is a commuter heavy rail service that runs from downtown San Francisco (4th and King Streets) to
downtown San Jose (Diridon Station), with a limited number of commute period trains running farther
south to Gilroy. During commute periods, Caltrain offers express service (“Baby Bullet”) between
downtown San Jose and San Francisco. Currently, Baby Bullet service is provided both in the northbound
and southbound directions during the morning and evening commute periods at the Mountain View
Caltrain station. Baby Bullet trains serve the Sunnyvale Caltrain station in the northbound direction during
the morning peak and in the southbound direction during the evening peak.
The nearest station to the project site is the Lawrence Station, which is located on Lawrence Expressway
approximately 4 miles northwest of the project site. During the weekdays, service in the northbound
direction begins at 4:40 a.m. and ends at 10:40 p.m. In the southbound direction, service at this station
begins at 6:14 a.m. and ends at 1:20 a.m. During the weekends, northbound service begins at 7:10 a.m.
and ends at 10:40 p.m. Southbound service begins at 9:40 a.m. and ends at 1:26 a.m. For passengers
arriving by bicycle, there are 18 bike racks and 24 bicycle lockers. Vehicle parking at this location includes
122 parking spaces.
BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section describes the background traffic conditions without the proposed project. The background
traffic conditions are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic
volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated
by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. The transportation network under background
conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network because there are no planned and
funded transportation improvements at the study intersections. Background peak hour traffic volumes
were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet
completed or occupied projects in the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale. Trip generation estimates for the
approved projects were based on their respective traffic studies, if available, and on Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates.
Background without Project Intersection Operations
As shown in Table 4-13, the results of the level-of-service analysis show that most of the study
intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of
traffic under Background without Project conditions. The intersection level-of-service calculation sheets
are provided in Appendix D of the TIA, which is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study.
CC 03-03-20
409 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-79
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-13 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
ID # Intersection
Jurisdiction/
CMPa
LOS
Threshold
Peak
Hourb
Existing
Conditions
Background
Conditions
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 North De Anza Boulevard /
Homestead Road Cupertino (CMP) D AM
PM
37.2
38.7
D+
D+
37.8
39.5
D+
D
2 North De Anza Boulevard /I-280
North Ramps Cupertino (CMP) D AM
PM
21.9
35.5
C+
D+
21.9
36.1
C+
D+
3 North De Anza Boulevard / I-280
South Ramps Cupertino (CMP) C AM
PM
22.4
21.4
C+
C+
23.0
21.7
C+
C+
4 North De Anza Boulevard
/Mariani Avenue Cupertino D AM
PM
37.4
39.0
D+
D+
37.4
39.0
D+
D
5 North De Anza Boulevard
/Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino (CMP) E+ AM
PM
35.5
43.7
D+
D
35.9
44.6
D+
D
Notes: All of the study intersections are signalized.
a. Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections.
b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour.
Source: See Table 4 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 2019.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Roadways
After applying the ITE trip rates for hotels, appropriate trip reductions for being within walking distance of
services at Homestead Square Shopping Center and implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program with dedicated shuttle provisions as well as trip credits for the existing uses
(Goodyear Tire), the proposed hotel project would generate 1,562 net new daily vehicle trips, with 73
new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 87 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Using
the inbound/outbound splits contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the project would produce 42
new inbound and 31 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 44 new inbound and 43 new
outbound trips during the PM peak hour. A summary of the project’s trip generation is shown in Table 4-
14 below.
Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the estimated trip distribution patterns
presented in Figure 8 of the TIA. The net project trip assignment at the study intersections is shown on
Figure 9 of the TIA.
The impact criteria presented below focuses on roadway system operations and its effects on users,
including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit passengers, and first responders in emergency access
vehicles.
CC 03-03-20
410 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-80 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-14 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Hotel with 156 roomsa 12.23 1,908 0.62 56 41 97 0.73 56 58 114
Hotel and Retail Internal Mixed-Use Reduction (10%)b -191 -6 -4 -10 -6 -5 -11
TDM Reduction for Shuttle Program (3%)c -57 -2 -1 -3 -2 -2 -4
Subtotal 1,660 48 36 84 48 51 99
Existing Uses
Goodyear Tire (8,323 square feet)c -98
Net Project Trips 1,562 42 31 73 44 43 87
Notes: TDM = Transportation Demand Management
a. Trip generation based on average trip rates for Hotel (land use 310, Occupied Rooms) published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017.
b. Trip reduction based on Standard Auto Trip Reduction Rates published in VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2014.
c. Trip credits base on PM peak hour count conducted on July 11, 2018. Daily trips are estimated based on the ratio of daily to total AM and PM peak
hour trip rates for Tire Store (ITE Land Use 848).
Source: See Table 5 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 2019.
The following analysis was performed to evaluate traffic conditions during the weekday morning (AM) and
weekday evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios:
Existing Plus Project Conditions. In addition to the Existing Without Project conditions discussed
previously, the Existing Plus Project conditions were evaluated by adding traffic from the proposed
project.
Background Plus Project Conditions. In addition to the Background Without Project conditions
discussed previously, the Background Plus Project conditions were evaluated by adding traffic from
the other approved developments in the vicinity of the site.
Existing plus Project Conditions
Intersection levels of service were calculated with the new traffic added by the project to evaluate the
operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the roadway system. The
results of the intersection level-of-service calculations for Existing plus Project conditions are presented in
Table 4-15.
CC 03-03-20
411 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-81
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-15 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
ID Intersection
Jurisdiction/
CMP
LOS
Thresholda
Peak
Hourb
Existing
without Project Existing plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Increment
in Critical
Delay
Increment
in Critical
V/C
1 North De Anza Boulevard/
Homestead Road
Cupertino
(CMP) D AM
PM
37.2
338.7
D+
D+
37.5
39.3
D+
D
0.0
1.3
0.001
0.010
2 North De Anza Boulevard/
I-280 North Ramps
Cupertino
(CMP) D AM
PM
21.9
35.5
C+
D+
21.8
36.0
C+
D+
0.0
1.1
0.004
0.008
3 North De Anza Boulevard/
I-280 South Ramps
Cupertino
(CMP) C AM
PM
22.4
21.4
C+
C+
22.7
22.0
C+
C+
0.5
1.4
0.007
0.012
4 North De Anza Boulevard/
Mariani Avenue Cupertino D AM
PM
37.4
39.0
D+
D+
37.4
38.9
D+
D+
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.001
5 North De Anza Boulevard/
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino
(CMP) E+ AM
PM
35.5
43.7
D+
D
35.6
43.7
D+
D
0.1
0.2
0.003
0.001
a. LOS Threshold is the lowest acceptable LOS (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service).
b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour.
Source: See Table 6 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants,
Inc., June 2019.
As shown on Table 4-15 the level-of-service analysis show that all the study intersections would operate at
an acceptable LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic if the proposed project were
completed and operating today. However, because it would take approximately 2 years to complete the
construction of the project and begin operating the hotel, the proposed project would not have any effect
on the existing conditions. For this reason, impact conclusions are not drawn from the Existing plus
Project scenario. The criteria that define a significant project impact at a signalized intersection in the city
of Cupertino are based on comparing Background plus Project conditions to Background without Project
conditions that would be in effect at the time the proposed project would operating, which is discussed
below.
Background plus Project Conditions
The level-of-service analysis results from the Background plus Project conditions are summarized in
Table 4-16.
CC 03-03-20
412 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-82 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 4-16 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
ID # Intersection
Jurisdiction/
CMP
LOS
Thresholda
Peak
Hourb
Background
without Project
Conditions
Background
plus Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Increment
in
Critical
Delay
Increment
in
Critical
V/C
1 North De Anza Boulevard
/ Homestead Road
Cupertino
(CMP) D AM
PM
37.8
39.5
D+
D
38.2
40.2
D+
D
0.0
1.4
0.001
0.010
2 North De Anza Boulevard
/I-280 North Ramps
Cupertino
(CMP) D AM
PM
21.9
36.1
C+
D+
21.8
36.6
C+
D+
0.0
1.2
0.004
0.008
3 North De Anza Boulevard
/ I-280 South Ramps
Cupertino
(CMP) C AM
PM
23.0
21.7
C+
C+
23.3
22.2
C
C+
0.5
1.5
0.007
0.012
4 North De Anza Boulevard
/Mariani Avenue Cupertino D AM
PM
37.4
39.0
D+
D
37.4
39.0
D+
D+
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.001
5 North De Anza Boulevard
/Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino
(CMP) E+ AM
PM
35.9
44.6
D+
D
35.9
44.6
D+
D
0.1
0.0
0.003
0.001
Notes: All of the study intersections are signalized.
a. LOS Threshold is the lowest acceptable LOS (the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service).
b. AM = morning peak hour, PM = evening peak hour.
Source: See Table 7 of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 2019.
The results presented in Table 4-16 show that all of the study intersections would continue to operate at
an acceptable LOS D or better for all intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under
Background plus Project conditions. The proposed project would not cause the critical-movement delay at
a CMP intersection to increase by 4 or more seconds and the V/C to increase by 1 percent (0.01) or more
compared to Background plus Project conditions. Therefore, the project’s impact at all intersections is
considered less than significant.
Construction Traffic
Demolition and construction would take place over a 2-year period, which is anticipated to begin in
August 2020 and end in 2022, subject to regulatory approval. During this period, the project would
generate changes to the existing transportation conditions. New traffic would be generated by
construction employees and construction activities, including haul trucks. Construction traffic is
temporary and would generate fewer trips than the projected trips during project operation. As discussed
above, the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection.
Pedestrian Facilities
The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the existing sidewalks and crosswalks
in the area. The project site and surrounding uses would continue to use the existing sidewalks along both
sides of North De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road. Pedestrian access via the parking lot of the
adjacent Homestead Square Shopping Center would not be interrupted. The project would construct new
CC 03-03-20
413 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-83
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
sidewalks along the north and south sides of the hotel building, connecting to the existing sidewalk along
North De Anza Boulevard. The site plan shows the existing sidewalk along North De Anza Boulevard to
remain 5 feet wide. The newly constructed sidewalks around the building would measure between
approximately 5 feet wide and 10 feet wide. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study
area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other
points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. The project would not eliminate or impede any existing
pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any of the goals and policies in the City’s Pedestrian Plan.
Bicycle Facilities
There are existing bicycle facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are also planned
bicycle facilities in the study area, including buffered bike lanes along Homestead Road and North De Anza
Boulevard. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted
plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. The vehicular access to the project site would remain similar to
the existing conditions and would not eliminate or impede the existing bicycle facilities.
The proposed project would provide Class 1 bicycle parking spaces (bicycle lockers or secure rooms) in the
subterranean parking levels. Class 2 bicycle parking spaces (publicly accessible bicycle racks) would be
available for guests and employees near the main entrance. Therefore, the proposed project would not
obstruct or hinder the implementation of the City’s Bike Plan and would support the use of bicycling by
providing adequate bike facilities for guests and employees.
Transit
The project site is served by existing VTA bus routes. The closest bus stops are located within a two-
minute walk (about 500 feet) to and from the project site, providing access to local bus routes 55 and 81.
The VTA has not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. The new transit
trips generated by the project are not expected to create demand in excess of the transit service that is
currently provided.
In summary, the proposed project would not exceed the City’s level-of-service standards for vehicular
transportation, and there would be adequate availability of alternative modes of travel including
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit in the project area. The proposed project would not displace modify or
interfere with any transit stop, sidewalk, or bicycle lanes. In addition, the project would not generate a
demand for transit that would exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added to the updated CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018.
Section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. As
CC 03-03-20
414 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-84 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
stated in Section 15064.3(a), vehicle-miles traveled or VMT is the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts evaluated pursuant to Section 15064.3(b).
VMT is a useful metric in understanding the overall effects of a project on the transportation system. VMT
is the sum of all of the vehicle trips generated by a project multiplied by the lengths of their trips to and
from the site on an average weekday. A vehicle driven 1 mile is 1 VMT. Therefore, a project with a higher
VMT would have a greater environmental effect than a project with a low VMT.
The trip lengths vary by the land use type and the trip purpose. For example, a trip from a residence to a
job may be longer than the trip from a residence to a neighborhood school. The VMT values stated below
represent the full length of a given trip, and are not truncated at city, county, or region boundaries.
Many factors affect travel behavior and trip lengths such as density of land use, diversity of land uses,
design of the transportation network, distance to high-quality transit, and demographics. Low-density
development separated from other land uses and located in areas with poor access to transit generates
more automobile travel and higher VMT compared to development located in urban areas with more
access to transit.
While the updated CEQA Guidelines were approved on December 28, 2018, cities and other agencies
have an opt-in period until July 1, 2020 when CEQA VMT analysis becomes mandatory Statewide. At that
time, impacts on auto delay or level of service, as described in criterion (a), will no longer be considered a
significant impact under CEQA.
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the VMT per capita is projected to increase from 10.5 to 10.9 under
General Plan buildout conditions. The proposed project would construct a 156-room hotel, which is
consistent with the land use evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not directly result in any
additional new population growth or employment growth beyond what was accounted for in the General
Plan EIR. Accordingly, implementation of the project would be consistent with and would have no effect
on the VMT estimates presented in the General Plan EIR.
For the reasons describe above, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Driveway Design
As shown on Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3 of this Initial Study, vehicular and bicycle access to the project site
would be provided from two limited-access (right-turn only) driveways located on North De Anza
Boulevard: one located at the northern end of the project site and one located at the southern end of the
project site. Both driveways would provide access to the passenger drop-off/pick-up area adjacent to the
CC 03-03-20
415 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-85
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
hotel lobby entrance on the south side of the proposed hotel, as well as to the underground parking
garage. Both project driveways would also continue to serve the existing Homestead Square Shopping
Center. The driveway widths would be 30 feet wide at the south access point, a reduction from the
existing 34-foot driveway, and 32 feet and 4 inches wide at the north access point, a reduction from the
existing 40-foot driveway. As proposed, both driveways would adequately serve two-way traffic as
intended and are consistent with the CG-rg zoning district which requires driveways to be wide enough to
accommodate the width of three cars (e.g., 30 feet wide).
The project-generated trips that are estimated to use the two driveways are a combined 48 inbound and
36 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 48 inbound and 51 outbound trips during the PM peak
hour. Although North De Anza Boulevard has high traffic volumes in the southbound direction, based on
observed traffic conditions, outbound vehicle queues should rarely exceed 2 or 3 vehicles in length during
the peak hours, and no queuing issues are expected to occur.
North De Anza Boulevard has a raised median between Homestead Road and the I-280 northbound
ramps. The project driveways would provide limited access, allowing only inbound and outbound right
turns to and from North De Anza Boulevard. Consequently, outbound vehicles seeking to travel north on
North De Anza Boulevard must make a U-turn at the I-280 southbound ramps, while inbound vehicles
approaching from the south must make a U-turn at Homestead Road to access the project driveways.
Based on the project trip distribution pattern, it is estimated that 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour
and 17 vehicles during the PM peak hour would be making a U-turn at the I-280 southbound ramps, while
26 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 25 vehicles during the PM peak hour would be making a U-turn
at Homestead Road.
Sight Distance
There are some existing trees along the project frontage on North De Anza Boulevard; however, the trees
do not conflict with a driver’s ability to locate gaps in traffic given their high canopies. The project
driveways are free and clear of visual obstructions, thereby ensuring exiting vehicles can see pedestrians
on the sidewalks and vehicles and bicycles traveling on North De Anza Boulevard. Any proposed additional
landscaping and/or signage would be required to be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view
for drivers exiting the site.
Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the driveways on De Anza
Boulevard providing access to the project site in accordance with Caltrans standards, as described in the
Highway Design Manual (July 2, 2018). Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet
back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at
an intersection or driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The
minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance
requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. Given that De Anza Boulevard has a posted speed
limit of 40 miles per hour (mph), the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 360 feet (based on a design speed
of 45 mph). Thus, a driver must be able to see 360 feet in both directions along De Anza Boulevard in
CC 03-03-20
416 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-86 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on existing observations and the project site plan, both
driveways on De Anza Boulevard meet the Caltrans stopping sight distance standard.
Queuing Analysis
An analysis of the left-turn pocket queuing and storage lengths for the southbound left-turn movement at
the North De Anza Boulevard/I-280 southbound ramps intersection and the northbound left-turn
movement at the North De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road intersection was prepared in the TIA for the
proposed project.
At the North De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road intersection, the storage pockets for the westbound
left-turn movement consists of two lanes, one approximately 225 feet and the other 425 feet in length, for
a total capacity of approximately 650 feet. For analysis purposes, this was averaged to 325 feet per lane,
which equates to an available storage of 13 vehicles per lane. The queuing analysis indicates that
adequate vehicle storage capacity currently exists to accommodate the 95th percentile vehicle queues
that occur during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The additional traffic from approved projects in
the area is estimated to increase the 95th percentile queue to 350 feet per lane, or 14 vehicles per lane,
during the AM peak hour. Thus, the estimated queue length would exceed the available storage by one
vehicle per lane under background conditions during the AM peak hour. The addition of project traffic
would not increase the 95th percentile vehicle queue during either the AM or PM peak hours. Because the
project would only add a small amount of traffic to the westbound left-turn movement at the North De
Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road intersection and would have no effect on the queue length of this turn
movement, the project is expected to have a minimal effect on traffic operations at this location.
Truck Access and Circulation
Truck activities (e.g., deliveries and garbage collection) for the project are not expected to occur within
the garage due to height and access limitations. The majority of loading and unloading is expected to
occur within the proposed freight loading zone at the northwest corner of the hotel building adjacent to
the north elevator. The designated loading zone is shown to be 40 feet long by 9 feet wide and would be
adequate to serve the hotel. Small delivery vehicles could also access the porte-cochere to make hotel
office deliveries.
The project plans show the trash room would be located at the northwest corner of the hotel building.
Garbage collection activities would occur on-site at this location outside the building. It is assumed that
garbage trucks could enter the site from either project driveway on De Anza Boulevard. On-site garbage
collection activities would involve rolling the trash bins out of the trash enclosure, collecting the waste
material, and returning the bins to the enclosure. Since the bins would be stored in outside trash
enclosures, adequate overhead clearance would be available to empty the dumpsters over the truck.
The project site plan was reviewed for truck access using truck turning-movement templates for a SU-30
(single-unit) truck type, which represents small- to medium-sized emergency vehicles, garbage trucks,
CC 03-03-20
417 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-87
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
delivery trucks and moving trucks. Based on the current site plan configuration, SU-30 trucks would have
adequate access at both project driveways. As proposed, the 30-foot wide southern project driveway
would provide adequate space for trucks (including emergency vehicles) to enter the driveway and
vehicles to exit the driveway simultaneously. Figure 16 in the TIA shows the anticipated clockwise truck
circulation pattern based on the proposed site layout. On-site truck circulation would be adequate.
Bike and Pedestrian On-site Circulation
The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site and
the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The project would construct a continuous sidewalk around the
perimeter of the hotel building, except along the west side of the hotel building where landscaping is
being proposed. Project plans also show pedestrian access between the parking structure and the on-site
uses would be provided via elevators and a stairway on each parking level. The elevators would be
centrally located, as well as situated along the north end of the building/garage. The stairways would be
located adjacent to the north elevator and in the southwest corner of the building, providing direct access
to either the hotel’s main lobby or to an exit corridor.
Class 2 (publicly accessible bicycle racks) bicycle parking spaces would be located adjacent to the main
hotel drive aisle at the southwest corner of the building. This would allow bicyclists to enter/leave the
project site using the project driveways and connect to the bike lanes on North De Anza Boulevard.
Providing convenient bike parking will help create a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment and
encourage bicycling by guests and employees. In addition, the inclusion of convenient bike parking
complements the bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
The proposed hotel would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses and would not
result in a design that would substantially increase hazards in the area. Accordingly, impacts would be less
than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Access to the proposed project would generally be the same as under existing conditions. As described in
criterion (c) above, no hazardous driving conditions due to a design feature would occur. Emergency
vehicles would continue to access the site in much the same way as it is accessed today. While the SCCFD
and City of Cupertino Building Division would coordinate the review of building permits for precise final
measurements, the preliminary plans have been designed to meet the turning radius requirements for
emergency vehicles. Project plans include approved fire and emergency access through all phases of
construction and operation. Compliance with the provisions of the Cupertino Fire Code and Cupertino
Building Code would ensure that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in inadequate emergency access, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures
would be required.
CC 03-03-20
418 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-88 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
XVI. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe,
and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the
purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance to a California Native
American tribe.
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As described above in Section VI, Cultural Resources, the General Plan EIR addressed impacts to cultural
resources associated with intensified development of the project site and impacts were less than
significant. The cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR consists of archival research at
the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field
inspection, and contact with the Native American community. The cultural resources study addressed
impacts associated with archeological resources, including those of Native Americans. As shown in Table
4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, of
the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources including those affiliated with Native
Americans are present on the project site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 amended CEQA to add standards of significance that relate to Native American
consultation and added “tribal cultural resources” to the specific cultural resources protected under
CEQA.119 AB 52 requires the CEQA lead agency to begin consultation with any California Native American
119 California Environmental Quality Act Statute, Section 21074.
CC 03-03-20
419 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-89
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if the
Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of the proposed
projects in the area. The consultation is required before the determination of whether a negative
declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required. In addition, AB 52 includes time limits for
certain responses regarding consultation. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.3 public agencies shall, when
feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources. Information shared by tribes as a result of
AB 52 consultation shall be documented in a confidential file, as necessary, and made part of a lead
agency’s administrative record. The City of Cupertino has not received a request from any Tribes in the
geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified
about projects in the city.
CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a tribal cultural resource as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register
of Historic Resources or included a local register of historical resources, or if the City, acting as the lead
agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal
cultural resource.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes
of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe?
The discussion in Section VI, Cultural Resources, is applicable to impacts to tribal cultural resources. As
discussed under criteria (b) and (c) in Section IV, no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites or
Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed in Section VI, Cultural Resources
under criterion (b), above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to
unknown archaeological deposits, including tribal cultural resources, to a less-than-significant level. As
discussed in Section VI, Cultural Resources under criterion (c), above, compliance with State and federal
regulations would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of
Native Americans, that may be discovered during project ground-disturbing activities. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and compliance with State and federal regulations related
CC 03-03-20
420 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-90 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact TRC-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse impact to an unknown Tribal
Cultural Resource.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, includes an analysis of impacts
related to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste. Impacts were found to be less than significant and
less than significant with mitigation. The City is required to implement General Plan Mitigation Measures
UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c, and UTIL-8 to ensure impacts related to wastewater and solid waste are less
than significant. General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c require the City to work with
the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) to increase the available citywide treatment and transmission
capacity, identify appropriate and current wastewater generation rates that are approved by CSD and
establish a monitoring and tracking system for wastewater generation to better understand the City’s
need for potential capacity upgrades from CSD. General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires the City
to continue current recycling and zero-waste practices, monitor solid waste generation and seek new
landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are
CC 03-03-20
421 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-91
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
closed. These mitigation measures, which were previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the
General Plan, will be implemented by the City.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions for each of the utility providers listed below:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara
County. The project site is located within the California Water Service (Cal Water) Los Altos Suburban
District (LASD) service area, and Cal Water would supply water for the project. Water supply for the
LASD is a combination of groundwater from wells in the LASD and treated water purchased from
SCVWD.
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer services for the project site. Wastewater
would be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP).
Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard
waste service to the residents of the project. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary
Landfill until 2023, which, according to CalRecycle, had a remaining capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards
and daily disposal capacity is 4,000 tons per day as of October 31, 2014.120
Gas and electricity would be supplied to the project site by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be
available from a number of providers, including Comcast.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The CSD sewer collection system directs wastewater to the SJ/SCWPCP, which is jointly owned by the
cities of San José and Santa Clara. Municipal storm water discharges in the City of Cupertino are subject to
the Waste Discharge Requirements of the new Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-
0049) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which became effective on January 1, 2016. The MRP
currently allows dry weather discharges of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary
treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271 mgd with full tertiary treatment. As discussed below
in criterion (c), future demands from the proposed project would not exceed the design or permitted
capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future water treatment demand was assessed in
120 Calrecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN-0003/Detail/, accessed March 1, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
422 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-92 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of development in the city through the
2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not
require any improvements not already considered and the impact of the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP
would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
As previously discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project does not exceed
the capacity of stormwater drainage system that serves the project site. All new development that, like
the proposed project, creates or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface would be
subject to Provision C.3 guidelines for stormwater control. Through C.3 compliance, the proposed project
would involve actions to minimize runoff from the project site as described in Section IX, Hydrology and
Water Quality, above. Additionally, the project would comply with CMC Chapter 9.18 described above in
Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, which is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain
requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City.
The project site is located in an area where the storm drains are deficient in conveying the water from a
10-year storm based on the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan. The lines on Homestead Road, from Sunnyvale
East Channel to De Anza Boulevard are currently under capacity and designated as low priority for
replacement.121 However, the proposed project would not exacerbate this existing condition. The
proposed project would provide several bioretention water treatment areas, raised planters and drainage
management areas throughout the project site. These would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots,
sidewalks and streets for treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the internal storm drain
system, which connects to the City’s storm drain system in North De Anza Boulevard. When combined,
the on-site water treatment areas would meet the required treatment areas of 1,997 square feet.
Consequently, the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or
the construction of new facilities, the construction of which could otherwise have significant impacts.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Other Utility Facilities
Other utility facilities that serve the project site include electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would supply natural gas and electricity to the
project site. AT&T and other providers would provide telephone service. Cable television service would be
available from a number of providers, including Comcast. The proposed project is an infill development
project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the city that has access to
existing infrastructure and services, which was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. The project would
include appropriate on-site infrastructure to connect to the existing PG&E and telecommunication
121 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
CC 03-03-20
423 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-93
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
systems and would not require new off-site facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to any existing facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As shown in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply at project buildout year 2020 would
be 13,078-acre feet122 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040 would be 16,984 afy. As
discussed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water
supplies from Cal Water under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years,
with the proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place. The water supply
evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR included new development in the City at a greater number
of hotel rooms at the project site than proposed under the project (250 rooms compared to 156 rooms);
therefore, water supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. The applicable water
use generation rate for hotel rooms and banquet areas, such as the proposed project, would be 0.50
gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). Therefore, the estimated water demand is 156 hotel rooms x 390
square foot per room x 0.50 gpd/sf for a total of 30,420 gpd or 34 afy. The Water Supply Evaluation
prepared for the General Plan EIR estimated a total of 1,339 hotel rooms (1,000 new rooms plus 339
existing rooms) would generate water demand of 261,100 gpd or 293 afy. Accordingly, the proposed
project’s water demand would not exceed the available water supply in 2020 at project buildout or by the
General Plan buildout year (2040). Accordingly, impacts to water supply under the proposed project
would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Based on the May 2007 City of Santa Clara Sewer Capacity Assessment, the estimated wastewater
generation rate for hotel uses is 100 gpd per room. Applying this generation rate, the proposed 156-room
hotel would generate up to 15,600 gpd or approximately 0.0156 mgd of wastewater.
The SJ/SCWPCP’s current total capacity of 450 mgd. Combined, the proposed project’s wastewater
generation (0.0156 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated (105 mgd) would not exceed the
SJ/SCWPCP’s current total capacity of 450 mgd.
The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd, on average, with the SJ/SCWPCP.
At the time of the General Plan EIR, the wastewater generation of 5.3 mgd was estimated by the CSD.123
122 One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field,
one foot deep.
123 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, 4.3
Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B-93.
CC 03-03-20
424 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-94 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.0156 mgd) would not
exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the proposed 156-room hotel is
within the 1,339-hotel-room limit evaluated in the General Plan EIR; therefore, no new impact would
result.
The CSD wastewater system flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The
contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara sewer
system, allows 13.8 mgd during peak wet weather flows. The existing CSD peak wet weather flow into the
Santa Clara system is 13.29 mgd.124 However, the estimated wastewater generation from the proposed
project and from other potential projects as established by the General Plan and other approved projects,
the total capacity needed to serve these projects is approximately 14.02 mgd.125 Therefore, the proposed
project, and other approved and potential projects as established by the General Plan buildout, will
require a reduction in sewer generation from the CSD system prior to flowing into the City of Santa Clara
system, or additional capacity rights will need to be acquired from the City of Santa Clara.
CSD performed smoke testing of a portion of the sewer system in 2018. The results of the smoke testing
showed that certain portions of their system are being impacted by inflow from illegal connections to the
system. These illegal connections include area drains, catch basins and roof rainwater leaders from both
public and private facilities within the City of Cupertino and the City of Saratoga jurisdictions. These illegal
connections collect storm water and direct the flow to the sewer system. Calculating the flows from these
illegal connections, using the Manning’s flow equation and the size of the areas that flow to these
connections, there is an addition of approximately 0.4 mgd to the sanitary sewer peak wet weather flow.
Disconnecting these illegal connections and redirecting these storm water flows to the public storm drain
system would result in a reduction of the sewer peak wet weather from 14.02 mgd to 13.62 mgd, which is
below the City of Santa Clara contractual limit.
Construction and operation of the proposed hotel would exceed the 13.8 mgd contractual limit through
the City of Santa Clara and this significant impact would be reduced to less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
Impact UTIL-1: The proposed project may result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed De Anza
Hotel Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8
124 Mark Thomas. Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
February 20, 2019.
125 Mark Thomas. Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
February 20, 2019Sewage coefficients use to calculate the sewer generation rates for the various uses in the project and the
General Plan buildout were taken from the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer
Coefficient table and from the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007.
CC 03-03-20
425 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-95
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant may demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed hotel
would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by
implementing one or more of the following methods:
1) Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
2) Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of
the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce
sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
3) The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation
rates used by the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer
Coefficient table in the May 2007, City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment,126 and
California Green Building Standards, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by
the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the
satisfaction of the CSD.
Alternatively, if the prior agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara that currently limits the
permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system
were to be updated to increase the permitted peak wet weather flow, this would also render any impacts
to be less than significant. If this were to occur prior to the City’s approval of building permits, then
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would no longer be required to be implemented.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would guarantee that no development on the project
site could occur that would exceed 13.8 mgd peak wet weather flow contractual limit through the City of
Santa Clara and CSD by ensuring that no building permit would be issued for any structures or units that
result in the contractual limit being exceeded until: (1) additional capacity is available through the City of
Santa Clara’s sewer system; (2) improvements would be made to the CSD sewer system that reduce the
peak wet weather flows that enter the City of Santa Clara system; (3) improvements would be made on
the project site that ensure the contractual limit is not exceed; or (4) the completion of any combination
of these approaches that adequately addresses potential capacity issues. Accordingly, impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The City contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in
the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023 and has not secured a new
126 Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
426 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-96 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
landfill contract. However, according to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, the landfills in the
County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is currently being landfilled) have adequate
disposal capacity beyond 2026.127 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s
existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in
Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los
Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal
Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker
Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill.
Waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting. Solid
waste generated by construction of the proposed project would largely consist of demolition waste from
the existing buildings as well as construction debris. The project would be required to comply with CMC
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste
Policy, which requires the recycling or diversion at least 65 percent of all generated construction and
demolition (C&D) waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility.128,129 Prior to the issuance of any
demolition, grading, and/or building permits, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed
Waste Management Plan. The Waste Management Plan shall do the following:
Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for
future use or sale.
Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.
Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.
Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.
Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by
both.
Compliance with CMC Chapter 16.72 and the City’s Zero Waste Policy would reduce solid waste and
construction-related impacts on landfill capacity.
The operation of the project is estimated to generate approximately 78 employees on the site. In 2016,
the city of Cupertino’s actual disposal rate for employees was 4.5 PPD, a much lower disposal rate than
the estimated target disposal rate of 8.1 PPD.130 The city of Cupertino’s disposal rates for employees have
been below target rates and steadily decreasing since 2007, with the exception of 2014, when the rate
127 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996.
128 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction
and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement.
129 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018.
130 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed June 10, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
427 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-97
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
(9.8 PPD) exceeded the target (8.10 PPD).131 The project would also include temporary residents at the
hotel. According to CalRecycle, the disposal rate of hotels is estimated to be 2 PPD for each room.132
Applying these disposal rates, the project would generate approximately 944 PPD or 0.5 tons per day of
new waste,133 which is well within the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill permitted daily disposal capacity of
4,000 tons per day. Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-significant impact
with regard to staying within the target disposal rates, and the project would comply with the City’s
current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies, which would further reduce solid waste disposed of
in the landfill. Thus, operation-related impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The City’s per capita disposal rate for 2017 was 3.6 PPD, which is below the 4.3 PPD target rate
established by CalRecycle.134 As part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to address
waste management conditions within Santa Clara County, Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE)135 and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)136 in compliance with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act.137 The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing
several programs, including the City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program, and
Environmental Recycling Day events offered to residents three times per year by Recology.
Implementation of the referenced strategies, programs and plans, as well as the Cupertino CAP that was
adopted in January 2015, will enable the city to meet the 75 percent solid waste diversion rate by the year
2020. Additionally, in December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.138 According to the Zero
Waste Policy, the City will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement, steadfast and
ongoing efforts by the City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial waste
diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025.These programs
will be sufficient to ensure that future development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, would
not compromise the ability to meet or perform better than the State mandated target. Additionally,
construction and any demolition debris associated with the project would be subject to CMC Chapter
16.72, requiring that a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris be diverted from landfill.139 Additionally, the
131 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed June 10, 2018.
132 CalRecycle, “Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rate,”
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed June 10, 2018.
133 (8.1 PPD x 78 net new employees = 631.8 PPD) + (2 PPD x 156 rooms = 312 PPD) = 943.8 PPD
134 CalRecycle. 2017. Disposal Rate Calculator. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting /DisposalRate
Calculator, accessed March 18, 2019.
135 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, September 21, 1992.
136 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Household Hazardous Waste Element, September 21, 1992.
137 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.6, Solid Waste, Non-Organic Recycling and Recycling
Areas, Section 9.16.010(a), Purpose.
138 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed October 4, 2018.
139 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction
and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement.
CC 03-03-20
428 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-98 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
City’s Zero Waste Policy also requires that all private construction projects that come through the City’s
permitting process, and all City projects (through contract requirements), to recover and divert at least 65
percent of the construction waste generated by the project. Compliance with applicable statutes and
regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
would be required.
XVIII. WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressed wildfire hazard and
impacts are found to be less than significant. Note this section of the Initial Study addresses additional
questions regarding wildfire related impacts pursuant to the news CEQA Guidelines that were adopted in
December 2018.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local government, or the
federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are the areas in the State where the State of
California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The
SRA forms one large area over 31 million acres to which the State Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.
Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) include incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of
the desert. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts,
CC 03-03-20
429 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-99
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government.140 CAL FIRE uses an extension of the SRA
Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis for evaluating fire hazard in LRA. The LRA hazard rating
reflects flame and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban
area. The SCCFD currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the city.
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) are identified by Moderate, High and Very High in an SRA, and Very High
in a LRA. The nearest FHSZ in the SRA and the LRA is a VHFHSZ about 5 miles south where the Fremont
Older Open Space Preserve interfaces with the urban edge.141 Land between the edge of the FHSZ and
the project site is dense urban development.
DISCUSSION
The project site is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones;
therefore, no impact would occur.
See Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a discussion of the project’s potential to conflict
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and expose people and
structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildfires.
See Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional discussion on the project’s potential to alter
the existing drainage pattern.
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
140 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs, accessed January 6, 2019.
141 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP).
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in SRA and LRA. FHSZ Viewer.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps
CC 03-03-20
430 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-100 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site is in an urbanized and extensively developed area of Cupertino, which is almost entirely
built out with commercial and residential development, and associated surface parking. The project site is
currently developed with an 8,323 square-foot building that is one story (approximately 18 feet) tall and is
occupied with a Goodyear Tire, with a few green spaces and trees within and surrounding the on-site
building. There are no identified sensitive natural communities, no areas of sensitive habitat, and no areas
of critical habitat on the project site. Additionally, there are no buildings currently listed or eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, no recorded archaeological sites, and no known
paleontological resources located on the project site. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1,
GHG-1, BIO-1, CULT-1, TCR -1, and UTIL-1 would serve to protect the quality of the air, nesting birds, and
unknown cultural and tribal resources, as well as ensure adequate services are provided and that no
additional physical impacts would occur elsewhere. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would result in a less-than-significant impact to the quality of the environment, wildlife, and major
periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place
CC 03-03-20
431 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-101
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) advises that a discussion of cumulative impacts
should reflect both the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. To accomplish these
two objectives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methodologies for completion of a
cumulative impact analysis and allows for a reasonable combination of the two approaches:
The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects
producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and
The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted
plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared
for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as
regional modeling.
Table 4-17 shows the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino and how they relate to the
maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
TABLE 4-17 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CUPERTINO
Hotel Residential Commercial Office
General Plan EIR: Maximum
Development Potential 1,339 4,421 1,343,679 4,040,231
Reasonably Foreseeable Projects
Marina Plazaa 122 188 23,000
The Hamptons
Redevelopmenta 600
The Foruma 23
Westport Cupertinob 242 20,000
The Village Hotelb 185
Canyon Crossingsb 18 4,536
Vallcoc 339 2,923 600,000 1,810,000
Total Foreseeable Development 646 3,994 643,000 1,810,000
General Plan EIR: Remaining
Development Potential 693 427 700,679 2,230,231
Notes:
a. The project has been approved.
b. The project is under review.
c. The buildout numbers are a worst-case sum of the greatest buildout potential for this site for each land use category, and are derived
from the amounts of development in the previously approved Vallco Special Area Specific Plan and EIR (339 hotel rooms, 2,923 units,
1,750,000 square feet commercial, and 600,000 square feet commercial) and Vallco SB 35 Application (0 hotel rooms, 2,402 units,
1,810,000 square feet commercial, and 400,000 square feet commercial).
Source: City of Cupertino, 2019.
The General Plan EIR evaluated the cumulative effects of the General Plan Amendments, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning using the summary of projections approach provided for in CEQA
CC 03-03-20
432 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-102 JULY 2 , 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The General Plan EIR took into account growth from the General Plan
within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with projected growth
in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG.
As provided for by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the cumulative context considered in the General Plan
EIR varies, depending on the nature of the issue being studied, to best assess each issue‘s geographic
extent. For example, the cumulative impacts on water and air quality can be best analyzed within the
boundaries of the affected resources, such as water bodies and air basins. For other cumulative impacts,
such as hazard risks, traffic, and the need for new public service facilities, the cumulative impact is best
analyzed within the context of the population growth and associated development that are expected to
occur in the region or the public service providers’ jurisdiction.
The General Plan EIR included an assessment of the redevelopment of the project site with mixed-use,
hotel, retail, and residential projects. The hotel assumptions included an evaluation of up to 250 hotel
rooms, which is greater than the proposed 156-room De Anza Hotel. Therefore, as shown in Table 4-17,
the project when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino would not
exceed the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The impact discussions in
Section I through Section XVI above describes the proposed projects relationship to and consistency with
the scope of development, land use designations, population projections, and cumulative impacts
analyses contained in the General Plan EIR. As shown, the project’s cumulative impacts were determined
to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation in the cumulative context.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has considered new development at the Vallco
project site. While, as shown in Table 4-17, this development at the Vallco site is consistent with the
maximum buildout potential in the General Plan EIR for citywide cumulative discussions (e.g., population
and housing, water supply, etc.), the General Plan EIR did not evaluate localized cumulative impacts, such
as traffic, traffic related noise, and utilities infrastructure, for the vicinity of the project site. Due to the
distance between the proposed De Anza Hotel and the projects listed in Table 4-17, no localized
cumulative impacts related traffic, noise, or utilities would occur.
As described in the environmental checklist, the impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to, but would not
exceed, the cumulative impacts analyses included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed
project would not be expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts when considered along
with other impacts under the General Plan.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that could not be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level, thus the proposed project’s environmental effects would be less
than significant.
CC 03-03-20
433 of 873
PLACEWORKS 5-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the De Anza Hotel
Project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of project-specific mitigation
measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the
following information:
The full text of the mitigation measures;
The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;
The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;
The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and
The monitoring action and frequency.
The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed
project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
CC 03-03-20
434 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-2 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall
comply with the following best management practices for reducing
construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as required
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California
Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often
as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be
sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be
used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control
dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or
require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the
minimum required space between the top of the load and the top
of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if
possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed
water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as
needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders
to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per
hour.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff from public roadways.
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
And Building
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
CC 03-03-20
435 of 873
THE DE ANZA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-3
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction
contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate
Filters (DPF) for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all
construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning
Department and/or Building Division clearly show the
requirement for Level 3 DPF emissions standards for construction
equipment over 50 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project
site for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division
official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall
state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment
on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and
maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and
construction documents that all nonessential idling of
construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in
compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is
responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Planning & Building
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be
protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If
construction activities and any required tree removal are proposed
to occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31), the
construction contractor shall indicate, on all construction plans, that
preconstruction surveys shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or
grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that
preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or
construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting
period.
Applicant Prior to construction
During construction
Qualifying biologist
in consultation with
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife as
needed
Preconstruction
Survey
Once for survey;
ongoing if nesting
birds identified
and until they
have left the nest
CC 03-03-20
436 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-4 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree
removal or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been
initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or
young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young
birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified
biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
Protective measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e.,
demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction
fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined
by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds
nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing
development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of
300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly
basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by
the qualified biologist only in consultation with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young
have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is
no longer active.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface
cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
(including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
Applicant During construction Consulting
archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
CC 03-03-20
437 of 873
THE DE ANZA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-5
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City
shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted.
The contractor shall cooperate in the recovery of the materials.
Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for tribal cultural resources, historical resources or
unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the
evaluation of the resource to the California Register of Historical
Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also
include appropriate recommendations regarding the significance
of the find and appropriate mitigations as follows:
• If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist
shall assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
• If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or
prehistoric – the consulting archaeologist shall consult
with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance
of the resource and to recommend appropriate and
feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation
measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the
find, proposed project design, costs, and other
considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) may be
implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as
necessary, and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
Public Works &
Building Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall
incorporate the following in all grading, demolition, and construction
plans:
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
CC 03-03-20
438 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-6 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered
during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet
of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building
Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to
examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in
accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential
resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to
determine procedures that would be followed before
construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible,
the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the
resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and approval prior to implementation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The project applicant shall offset a
minimum of 173 metric tons metric tons of carbon dioxide-
equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year for a period of 30 years
(5,190 MTCO2e) through the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets
(i.e., not compliance offsets) from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) approved Offset Project Registries (i.e., Climate Action
Reserve, Verra, American Carbon Registry) or forecasted mitigation
units (FMUs) (GHG Mitigation Credits) from the Climate Action
Reserve’s Climate Forward program. The voluntary carbon offsets or
FMUs must be real, additional, permanent, confirmable, and
enforceable. The order of preference for purchase of voluntary
carbon offsets or FMUs shall be as follows: 1) within the City; 2)
within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of
California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Evidence of
payments, and funding of an escrow-type account or endowment
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Planning and
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
CC 03-03-20
439 of 873
THE DE ANZA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-7
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
fund shall be submitted to the City by the project applicant. Prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall
submit to the City of Cupertino Building Division official or his/her
designee, the necessary documentation to verify the agreement to
purchase the necessary voluntary carbon offsets or FMUs to offset
project emissions to below 1,100 MTCO2e per year.
NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The
following shall be incorporated in all demolition, grading, and
construction plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code
(CMC). Construction activities shall take place only during daytime
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition, the construction crew shall
adhere to the following best management practices shall be
observed:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition
or grading activities, all offsite businesses and residents within
300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned
activities. The notification will include a brief description of the
project, the activities that would occur, the hours when activity
would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The
notification should include the telephone numbers of the
contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to
respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a
Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Building Department
and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance
of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The
Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the
80 dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise
Control Plan, including those details listed herein, shall be
included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part
of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the on-
site Construction Manager, and shall include, but not be limited
Applicant Prior to and During
construction
City of Cupertino
Planning and
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
CC 03-03-20
440 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-8 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
to, the following available controls to comply with the 80 dBA
performance standard:
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a
sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly
visible to the public, which includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the
City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are
assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration
complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative
receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate
corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and
trucks used for project construction will utilize the best
available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds),
wherever feasible.
• Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools,
including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible.
Such requirements could include, but are not limited to,
erecting temporary plywood noise barriers between areas
where concrete saws will be used and nearby sensitive
receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise;
and undertaking the noisiest activities during times of least
disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.
• During the entire active construction period, stationary noise
sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as
possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within
temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will
be incorporated to the extent feasible.
• During the entire active construction period, noisy operations
will be conducted simultaneously to the degree feasible in
order to reduce the time periods of these operations.
• Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive
use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works
CC 03-03-20
441 of 873
THE DE ANZA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-9
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Department for approval prior to the start of the construction
phase.
• Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-
site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to
reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All
other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than
5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent
feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes
only. The construction manager will use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on
the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety
requirements and laws
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be
selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to
meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50
dBA at residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively,
and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses (i.e., the
Cupertino Hotel) during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A
qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review
mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine
specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to
comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical
equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on
surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise
reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures
and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise
source and the nearest receptors;
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where
feasible.
Applicant Prior to and During
construction
City of Cupertino
Public Works, and
Planning and
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
CC 03-03-20
442 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-10 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
Applicant During construction Consulting
archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by
the City for the proposed De Anza Hotel Project that would result in
exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8
mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project
applicant may demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of
Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed
hotel would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the
Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of
the following methods:
1) Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce
peak wet weather flows; or
2) Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water
use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used
within the proposed project, or other methods that are
measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to
acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
3) The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation
shall be calculated using the generation rates used by the
San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific
Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table in the May 2007, City
of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment,142 and
California Green Building Standards, unless alternative
Applicant Prior to construction Cupertino Sanitary
District, City of
Cupertino Public
Works and Building
Departments
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
142 Mark Thomas and Associates. Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
443 of 873
THE DE ANZA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-11
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
(i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed
project are substantiated by the project applicant based
on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD.
CC 03-03-20
444 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-12 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
CC 03-03-20
445 of 873
PLACEWORKS 6-1
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Organizations and Persons Consulted
This Initial Study was prepared by the following consultants and individuals:
6.1.1 LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director
Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Gian Martire, Associate Planner
Chad Mosley, City Engineer
Winnie Pagan, Senior Civil Engineer
David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer
6.1.2 REPORT PREPARERS
LEAD CONSULTANT
PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken, Principal-in-Charge
Jacqueline Protsman, Project Planner
Torina Wilson, Planner
Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Josh Carman, Senior Associate, Noise Specialist
Steve Bush, Senior Engineer
Grant Reddy, Graphics Specialist
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Brian Jackson, Senior Associate
CC 03-03-20
446 of 873
THE DE ANZA HOTEL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
6-2 JULY 2, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
CC 03-03-20
447 of 873
CC 03-03-20
448 of 873
From:Lauren Sapudar
To:Gian Martire
Subject:FW: Item #12 on 1/21 Agenda
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:25:14 AM
Attachments:image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey
<JWilley@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Subject: Item #12 on 1/21 Agenda
Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Member Chao, Council Member Wiley,
I was surprised to see that a 7 story hotel with no set backs was on the agenda for approval for
tonight's meeting. This project does not comply with the General Plan and if approved will modify
the General Plan. If the council approves projects that do not adhere to the General Plan, what is
the point of having a General Plan? And if there is effectively no General Plan, in the interest of fair
play, I hope that you will allow residents to violate it with impunity as well as developers.
Elections have consequences and several council members were elected on the promise that they
would listen to residents. Please listen. I am sure none of my neighbors have asked for a 7 story
hotel with no set backs.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
CC 03-03-20
449 of 873
From:Lauren Sapudar
To:Beth Ebben; Gian Martire; Benjamin Fu
Subject:FW: Regarding GPA process in Cupertino
Date:Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:00:42 AM
Attachments:image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
FYI
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Ignatius Y. Ding <ignatius.ding@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:30 AM
To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul
<DPaul@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Subject: Regarding GPA process in Cupertino
Dear Mayor Scharf, Council members Paul, Willey and Chao,
I am writing this email with a heavy heart.
Last night, I arrived at the Community Hall after you have
already taken Item #12, the review and approval of the
Goodyear Hotel GPA request, off the meeting agenda, and near
the end of the Oral Communications.
Therefore, I missed the opportunity to raise my concern about
how the Council handles the GPA process as well as the surprise
change of the way you handle these GPAs mimicking the
corrupted political maneuvers that have dominated the past city
CC 03-03-20
450 of 873
councils and widely disguised the majority of the Cupertino
residents, including yourselves.
Why would our city bother to have a General Plan if our Council would just cave in
and accommodate every developer with their clear violations of the rules and
guidelines of the General Plan (and risk changing the character of our community as in
the case), despite of the persisting opposition of the community at large?
Are you now turning yourselves into another group of "We
Know Better Than All of You" politicians as the past city
councils? That is a question that I have never fathomed to ask
before!!
I urge you to revisit and solidify the GPA process. Please stay on course to honor your
pledge to serve the residents who elected you.
Note that I did not include Councilman Rod Sinks in this email because I consider him
a lost cause as a man without integrity and good character.
I speak only for myself.
Respectfully,
Ignatius Y. Ding
CC 03-03-20
451 of 873
17901 Von Karman Ave, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 556-8714
www.better-neighborhoods.com/
December 2, 2019
Mr. Gian Martire
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: GianM@cupertino.org
Re: De Anza Hotel Project - Cupertino
Dear Mr. Martire,
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide questions and comments regarding the above-
referenced Project.
Better Neighborhoods is an organization established to help people have a voice in local
development decisions as prominent as that of planners and developers. Our aim is to encourage
smart growth consistent with the needs of the community while protecting the natural environment
and places of historic and aesthetic significance, supporting California’s need for affordable housing
and balancing the desire for growth with the need for features that make cities livable.
The proposed Project, a seven-story, 156-room hotel with rooftop bar and lounge, would require
two extraordinary permissions to overcome height and setback restrictions while offering little in
return in the way of goods and services to those in the local residential area, as relevant planning
goals require. It’s actually about a block from another hotel, one with an attractive fountain and a
heated swimming pool. Despite its plum location in the De Anza Gateway, the Project falls short of
the special gateway standards calling for high-quality architecture and/or unique features, such as
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art. The Project design
is basic, box-like, functional - rather pedestrian, really - with no distinguishing features.
It would require demolishing the Goodyear Auto Center at the site, potentially releasing assorted
toxins, including at least one known 200-gallon waste oil Underground Storage Tank (UST)
CC 03-03-20
452 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 2
undiscovered during an incomplete geotechnical survey but whose removal is undocumented with
authorities.
The Project would also increase traffic and noise in the area, compromise air quality during a
prolonged construction period not contemplated by the General Plan EIR, burden water supply and
possibly exceed wastewater capacity if proposed experimental wastewater collection planters fail to
perform as intended.
It’s not clear what criteria the City would use to determine whether to grant the special permissions
needed to support the size of the Project.
Several of the measures intended to mitigate environmental impacts appear somewhat impractical if
not fanciful.
More investigation and analysis of the risks is needed particularly regarding the UST’s, air quality,
wastewater, noise and traffic, preferably with relevant examples, before a proper assessment of this
Project could obtain.
Zoning
The Project site, a 1.29-acre parcel at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, is currently developed with
a one-story Goodyear Auto Service Center. The proposal calls for demolishing the existing building
before constructing the hotel, which would include four levels of below-grade parking and some
modest landscaping. The site is designated under the General Plan as Commercial/Residential, the
Zoning District, General Commercial (CG) with special development regulations (rg), referred to as
CG-rg. Special permissions have been sought to increase building height and reduce setback.
While the hotel is a permitted use and its construction might not exceed the hotel room maximum
contemplated by the General Plan EIR, the CG zoning district is intended to provide a means of
guiding development to establish retail, office and services “that ensure the maximum compatibility
with surrounding residential areas.”(emphasis added). Development in this district is also
intended to provide goods and services “while minimizing adverse traffic impacts resulting from
commercial development.”
How compatible would another hotel so close to its competitor be to surrounding residential areas
especially as it would increase traffic in the area? Would the proposed hotel shuttle from the airport
even if offered to residents at a discounted rate, as the proposal provides, actually mitigate the
anticipated traffic increase and air quality impact? Has such a service ever done so?
What criteria would the City use to determine whether to grant the two special permissions needed
to support the size of the Project, which would exceed zoning height and setback restrictions? How
are such matters decided? It’s not clear from the Report.
CC 03-03-20
453 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 3
Construction
Demolition and construction would take place over a two-year period - August 2020 to 2022 – and
it would adversely impact air quality. How much is very difficult to ascertain from Air Quality and
Health Risk Assessments in Appendices A and B, which fail to interpret the data provided in a
meaningful way. The only clear statement provided is that cancer risk for the maximum exposed
off-site resident just from Project construction activities would be 33.4 in a million, greatly
exceeding the 10 in a million significance threshold. This alone, some might argue, should preclude
the development altogether. Does the City typically approve projects that pose a health risk of this
size?
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 provides some assurance that construction equipment would be managed
more carefully than it usually is, a concept as surprising as it is troubling. Wouldn’t the test for
construction impact on cancer and human health presume the equipment is being managed at the
same level as the mitigation measure describes? If not, why not? If so, what would be the value of
the mitigation measure? More information regarding the calculation and construction equipment
management is required.
Project Operations
The Report asserts that Project operations would not be a major air pollutant emissions source.
Examples of projects that do generate substantial TAC emissions are distribution centers with more
than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day. (Report, p. 4-
16). What about all the trucks delivering food and other hotel supplies to the Project throughout the
day and night? According to the Report, such deliveries would be less than CARB’s recommended
advisory criteria for distribution centers (100 trucks per day). How so? Are the calculations and
interpretive analysis available for closer review?
The analysis regarding hotspots at page 4-17 of the Report also appears somewhat questionable. Is
there an example of a delivery drop-off of a size similar to the Project’s? Also, how would
congestion management away from the hotel work as a practical matter? More explanation is
needed.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
We know that the Project would generate GHG emissions directly and indirectly that could have a
significant impact on the environment. Sifting through the obfuscation, Table 4-6 shows emissions
that exceed BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions, BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and
disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination on the
CC 03-03-20
454 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 4
significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions. Has the City made such a
determination for the Project?
There is inevitably confusion regarding the somewhat esoteric calculations regarding this particular
metric, but could the City please explain the purpose of amortizing over a 30-year project lifetime
the estimated construction emissions? Is this simply a way to describe the impact as less harmful
than it would be? How else could emissions during construction ever be found as they are here to be
less than significant? How does such a calculation support the purpose of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is to provide full and frank disclosure of potential
environmental impacts a particular project poses?
How would the purchase of carbon offsets change GHG emissions? Does the City track CAP and, if
so, what conclusions may be drawn? Do such offsets actually benefit the community? We know that
a busy urban hotel would be a huge, new source of GHG emissions but virtuously worded
undertakings without oversight are just not meaningful.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the Report at page 4-44, a geophysical survey was performed only “within accessible
areas of the site”. (emphasis added). What about inaccessible areas? How does the survey comport
with requirements under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)?
The Report notes the possibility that the geophysical survey missed the one known UST, which
EDR records indicate was installed at the site in 1973 though there is no record of its removal. What
is the likelihood of uncovering still more undocumented USTs? Have there been many such
surprises in the Project area? Why would removal of a UST be undocumented given the highly
regulated requirements for such removal under the California Environmental Reporting System?
The obvious concern is that without a better understanding of the whether there are, in fact, no more
remaining 200-gallon waste oil UST’s underground, any disturbance of the site – including
construction of 4 levels of underground parking for the Project -- might set off an environmental
disaster of contaminants entering groundwater, ocean and air.
The incomplete geophysical survey also revealed very low detectable concentrations of diesel,
motor oil, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and PCB contaminants were reported in the seven
soil borings. These soil concentrations were determined to be below the San Francisco Regional
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The soil vapor
samplings indicated relatively low levels of VOCs also below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier
1 ESLs for soil gas. What would be the risk of disturbing the site during construction considering
the site is within about a mile of quite a few schools (sensitive receptors)?
CC 03-03-20
455 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 5
Hydrology and Water Quality
New requirements by the SWRCB require Applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes
post-construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. The Report asserts
that with implementation of special mitigation measures as provided, water quality impacts during
construction would be less than significant. In the absence of a Project SWPPP, such a conclusion is
at best premature. Are the planters described in the Report widely in use? If so, how effective are
they?
Land Use and Planning
This Project would definitely conflict with land use plans in that it would require two extraordinary
permissions for size not contemplated in the General Plan EIR, which makes it an unplanned
development. Contrary to area zoning guidelines, the Project would cater not to the needs of actual
residents but to visiting strangers. It would also burden the area with additional traffic, air pollution
and noise.
Noise
As the Report reveals, the Project during operations would likely generate a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the area in excess of current standards. Mitigation measures
include design and selection of less noisy equipment to meet the City noise thresholds. Does such
equipment actually exist? Are there any examples? Mitigation could also include dampening
techniques, such as walls, but no specifics are given. Or noisy equipment might be located in less
noise-sensitive areas, ‘where feasible’. What areas might those be? More information, including
practical examples, is needed.
The stationary noise assessment at page 4-62 cannot be accurate. Everybody knows that an urban
hotel is necessarily a busy, noisy place with people coming and going and calling to one another
throughout the day and night. How much noise does a rooftop bar typically generate? Are there
examples within the City that we might study for comparison purposes? How many noise
complaints does a rooftop bar typically generate? What about rooftop mechanical equipment? There
must be ample acoustical statistics and relevant case studies to draw on.
We know that operations “would potentially exceed the CMC daytime noise limit of 65 dBA” and
“potentially exceed the CMC nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA for residential receptors.” Clearly,
this is not acceptable.
Light, Glare and Shadow
In addition to a mediocre, basic, functional architectural design, the Project at seven stories (88 feet)
would be a significant new source of light and possibly glare. This is not adequately addressed in
CC 03-03-20
456 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 6
the Report. Similarly, how much shadow might such an imposing structure cast on surrounding
uses?
Public Services
How many calls to fire and police does a hotel of this size typically generate? This, in our view, is a
more relevant measure of the burden the Project would create. How many sirens in the night could
nearby residents and hotel guests anticipate?
Transportation
The Project would generate an estimated 1,562 net new daily vehicle trips, with 73 net new trips
occurring during the AM (morning) peak hour and 87 net new trips occurring during the PM
(evening) peak hour. (Report, page 4-72). CMP analysis may not be required, as the Report
indicates, but that is nevertheless a significant traffic increase. What is the estimated percentage
traffic increase created by the Project?
Truck activities (e.g., deliveries and garbage collection) for the project are not expected to occur
within the garage due to height and access limitations. The majority of loading and unloading is
expected to occur within the proposed freight loading zone at the northwest corner of the hotel
building adjacent to the north elevator, an area 40 feet long by 9 feet wide. The noise generated by
truck activities in most cities typically continues throughout the day and night. In some cities, trucks
of a certain size entering and exiting a narrow alley are required to signal with blaring horns much
to the consternation of residents. Are there any bylaws in Cupertino to restrict noise at a loading
zone?
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Yes, there are environmental impacts posed by this Project that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable. As a practical matter, a new hotel about a block from a competitor, one
that boasts a swimming pool and an attractive fountain, cannot really be said to support the needs of
residents, as zoning guidelines require. While the Project may not exceed the hotel room maximum
contemplated by the General Plan EIR, the hotel would be significantly larger than contemplated
hence the requirement for two extraordinary permissions, which could induce similar requests and
unplanned growth. The Report does not properly describe or address the impact of increased traffic
or noise the Project would impose on the area. While the Project site is located in a special gateway
area, there is nothing special about the hotel’s architecture, which is neither unique nor especially
attractive. Nor are there any distinguishing features, such as public art statuary or extraordinary
plantings.
The Project would be bigger than contemplated in relevant planning documents which would mean
more noise and more traffic. A two-year construction period that might disturb dangerous and still
CC 03-03-20
457 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 7
undiscovered toxins not that far from a residential complex as well as and quite a few schools
(sensitive receptors) could pose a significant adverse impact on human health.
More information particularly more practical analysis of the risks would be needed to properly
assess the potential impacts of this Project.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Goolsby
President and CEO
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
CC 03-03-20
458 of 873
From:Ron Meulman
To:Gian Martire
Subject:De Anza Hotel Development Proposal
Date:Sunday, November 24, 2019 3:23:23 PM
Mr. Martire,
As a resident of Cupertino for 32+ years, I have witnessed the decline of our quality of life due to over-
development. What we don’t need is
to amend allocation, height and setbacks for a 155 room hotel in the middle of near gridlock roadways.
More money for the City's coffers? Please, for those of us who live here, don’t allow this to pass. The traffic is a
nightmare already and so are the compromises the City planners have made to allow excessive growth in my town.
Thank you,
Ron Meulman
10170 Danube Dr.
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 966-0423
Sent from my iPhone
CC 03-03-20
459 of 873
From:Beth Ebben
To:Gian Martire
Subject:FW: [OPNA] Fwd: City of Cupertino, CA: De Anza Hotel - Public Hearings [1 Attachment]
Date:Friday, November 8, 2019 11:19:10 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
For you
Beth Ebben
Deputy Board Clerk
Planning Division
BethE@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3308
From: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Beth Ebben <BethE@cupertino.org>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>
Subject: FW: [OPNA] Fwd: City of Cupertino, CA: De Anza Hotel - Public Hearings [1 Attachment]
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Holly Lofgren <halof@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 6:22 PM
To: R Wang <RWang@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fw: [OPNA] Fwd: City of Cupertino, CA: De Anza Hotel - Public Hearings [1 Attachment]
CC 03-03-20
460 of 873
Dear Honorable Mayor Scharf, the Cupertino City Council and the Chair of the Planning Commission,
In regards to the proposed hotel by De Anza Properties on the corner of Sunnyvale-Saratoga Roads and
Homestead Road, I would like to make a comment. I would prefer if you would not make a general plan
amendment for this project and would not approve this type of project in this location in general.
I am concerned about the loss of retail space, the traffic on that corner and the establishment of density
right on the Sunnyvale border. And it looks like it is six stories which is way out of place with the
surroundings.
If hotel space is needed, another location that can withstand the traffic would be a better choice.
Holly Lofgren
Sunnyvale (about 1 mile from this site)
De Anza Hotel - Public Hearings
Date: 11/06/2019 4:30 pm
Good evening,
The proposed De Anza Hotel, a new full-service boutique hotel with 155 rooms, will be heard on the
following dates:
Planning Commission
Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at
6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Avenue
City Council
Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at
6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Avenue
The applicant, Sherly Kwok, representing De Anza Properties, is seeking approval for General Plan
Amendment, Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, and Conditional Use Permit
applications and Development Agreement for the demolition of an existing 8,323 sq.ft. commercial
building (Goodyear Tires) to develop a new seven story full-service 24-hour boutique hotel with 155
rooms, restaurant with detached bar, and a rooftop lounge, which would require General Plan
amendments to hotel allocation, height, and setbacks. Plan sets and project information are available in
the link below:
CC 03-03-20
461 of 873
From:Lauren Sapudar
To:Benjamin Fu; Beth Ebben; Gian Martire
Cc:Deborah L. Feng
Subject:FW: De Anza Hotel and Westport Cupertino GPAs
Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:17:38 AM
Attachments:image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
From: Kent Vincent <deanza_travel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 8:36 PM
To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks
<RSinks@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao
<LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Subject: De Anza Hotel and Westport Cupertino GPAs
Dear Council member,
Cupertino residents recently received notices for hearings on two development proposals each requiring
General Plan Amendments: the De Anza Hotel and Westport Cupertino. I want to encourage the Council
to enforce the City's General Plan when ruling on these and all future development proposals. As you
know, General Plans are not intended to be project specific but the blueprint for future development
throughout the city. Unfortunately, developers have become accustomed to project-specific GPAs in
Cupertino via the actions of prior Councils. Cupertino residents elected a Council majority to end this
practice and actively enforce the General Plan. While I know you know this, I just want to give you
respectful encouragement noting enforcement has the support of your constituents. .
I think it is also worth mentioning that freely given project specific GPAs and rezoning encourages
property value inflation. Land cost is directly a function of utility and what is, or what is likely to be allowed
for development on any given parcel. A Council that holds its ground against GPAs in theory should
stabilize land prices so high rise, high density is less of a requirement for development profitability.
Respectfully,
Kent Vincent
Cupertino
CC 03-03-20
462 of 873
From:Barbara Everman
To:Gian Martire
Subject:De Anza Hotel Deveopment Proposal
Date:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 2:02:29 PM
Hi Gian Paolo,
I strongly do not support development of the De Anza Hotel where the Goodyear Tires store is
located. I shop at the shopping center with the big Cupertino Safeway. I am always able to
park. I am certain that the Hotel will impact parking at the shopping center and have a
detrimental effect on the availability of parking for Safeway and the other businesses. Despite
the Hotel having parking spaces available, there will be hotel patrons and guests who will park
at the shopping center. Please oppose this proposal. Thank you.
Barbara Everman (Cupertino resident for 26 years)
CC 03-03-20
463 of 873
From:joan meehan
To:Gian Martire
Subject:De Anza Hotel Input
Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:21:57 PM
hi, Gian - it was very nice to meet you last night.
My request is please improve management of that intersection.
It's poorly managed, in my experience, since Apple spaceship landed.
Thanks!
CC 03-03-20
464 of 873
From:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
To:Gian Martire
Subject:FW: De Anza Hotel
Date:Monday, December 9, 2019 8:33:40 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
From the general mailbox:
Beth Ebben
Deputy Board Clerk
Planning Division
BethE@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3308
From: David Rolnick <daverol@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 4:17 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: De Anza Hotel
Planning Commissioners,
I support the De Anza Hotel application. It will bring in significant TOT revenue to the city and also
help support local restaurants. And it also provide additional property tax revenue to our schools
without burdening them with more students.
Including some high quality art or landscaping to help beautify De Anza Blvd would be a plus.
Regards,
David Rolnick
CC 03-03-20
465 of 873
From:Beth Ebben
To:Gian Martire
Subject:FW: I support the GPA and construction plans for the DeAnza Hotel at DeAnza Blvd & Homestead
Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:39:13 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
From the general mailbox:
Beth Ebben
Deputy Board Clerk
Planning Division
BethE@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3308
From: Maxcinco <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:45 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino
Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City
Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>
Subject: I support the GPA and construction plans for the DeAnza Hotel at DeAnza Blvd &
Homestead
Dear Planning Commission, Planning Dept., City Manager, and City Council,
I support the plan for this hotel.
Its proximity to 280 and 85 will minimize its contribution to traffic on local streets. Its projected $1M
annual revenue to Cupertino, residents use of its daily shuttle to/from the airport, donated meeting
room usage, public rooftop bar amenity, and full service hotel services, plus a pledged $500k upfront
contribution to City coffers are all welcomed by residents.
Its height and setbacks are acceptable for this commercial corner of DeAnza and Homestead. I will
miss the Goodyear Tire store, but this hotel is a welcome addition to our community.
Jim Moore
Resident since 1976
PS: Here is some pertinent info on the Better Neighborhoods, Inc. entity that sent a lengthy letter
opposing the GPA for this hotel:
CC 03-03-20
466 of 873
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2018/07/11/ceqa-racket-extracts-11th-hour-payoffs-amidst-
housing-crisis/
Records show that Better Neighborhoods Inc. was incorporated in December 2017 by J. Michael
Goolsby, an Irvine resident barred from practicing law in California after being accused of fleecing
clients trying to save their homes from foreclosure in the wake of the Great Recession. His penchant
for get-rich-quick schemes suggests he’s more of an opportunist than a tree-hugger. His ownership
of all 1,000 shares of Better Neighborhoods, according to organization documents on file with the
California Secretary of State, confirms that BNI’s “responsible development” push is little more than
a one-man show, not a non-profit association.
CC 03-03-20
467 of 873
MEMORANDUM
DATE December 5, 2019
TO Gian Martire, Senior Planner, City of Cupertino
FROM Terri McCracken, Associate Principal, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Cupertino De Anza Hotel Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments Memo
INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino distributed a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
De Anza Hotel Project on Friday, June 28, 2019. This started a 30-day public comment period for
agencies and the public to submit comments on the July 2, 2019 Public Review Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The comment period ended on Monday, July 29, 2019. No
comments were received during the 30-day public comment period. During the noticing period for the
Planning Commission Hearing, one late comment letter was received on December 2, 2019.1
Although CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses
to comments received on an IS/MND, the City has prepared the following written responses with the
intent of conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed project.
Responses to the late comment letter are provided in Table 1, which is attached to this Responses to
Comments Memo. The table is organized by comment letter number, name of commenter, date of
comment letter, the comment, and a response to each comment raising environmental issues. The one
comment letter received by the City is attached to this Memorandum in its original format.
The comments and responses, and text revisions discussed in this Responses to Comments Memo do
not require any “substantial revisions” to the IS/MND as defined in the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073.5. No new, avoidable significant impacts have been
identified, and no mitigation measures or project revisions are required to reduce the environmental
effects of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. In addition revisions to the text of the
IS/MND merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifictions to the IS/MND. Accordingly, no
recirculation of the Public Review Draft IS/MND is required. This Responses to Comments Memo
together with the IS/MND constitutes the Final Draft IS/MND for the proposed project.
Attachments:
A: Late Comment Letter Received After the 30-day Public Review Period
B: Revised Air Quality Appendix
1 During the Planning Commission Hearing noticing period, three other project specific comments were received
however they were not focused on environmental concerns and/or the IS/MND.
CC 03-03-20
468 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 2
RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
Michael Goolsby, Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
1 Better Neighborhoods is an organization established to help people
have a voice in local development decisions as prominent as that of
planners and developers. Our aim is to encourage smart growth
consistent with the needs of the community while protecting the
natural environment and places of historic and aesthetic significance,
supporting California’s need for affordable housing and balancing the
desire for growth with the need for features that make cities livable.
Comment noted.
2 The proposed Project, a seven-story, 156-room hotel with rooftop
bar and lounge, would require two extraordinary permissions to
overcome height and setback restrictions while offering little in
return in the way of goods and services to those in the local
residential area, as relevant planning goals require. It’s actually about
a block from another hotel, one with an attractive fountain and a
heated swimming pool. Despite its plum location in the De Anza
Gateway, the Project falls short of the special gateway standards
calling for high-quality architecture and/or unique features, such as
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and
public art. The Project design is basic, box-like, functional - rather
pedestrian, really - with no distinguishing features.
The commenter’s opinion is noted.
3 It would require demolishing the Goodyear Auto Center at the site,
potentially releasing assorted toxins, including at least one known
200-gallon waste oil Underground Storage Tank (UST) undiscovered
during an incomplete geotechnical survey but whose removal is
undocumented with authorities.
The commenter asserts the geotechnical survey is incomplete yet
provides no evidence to support this assertion. The commenter
correctly states that the site could contain a 200-gallon waste oil
UST, as discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, on page 4-44 and page 4-47 of the IS/MND. As stated
CC 03-03-20
469 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 3
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
in the IS/MND, due to the relatively small size (approximately 2
feet by 4 feet) of the 200-gallon waste oil UST there is the remote
possibility that the geophysical survey could have missed the
single UST that Environmental Data Resources (EDR) records
show was installed at the project site in 1973 but has no record of
its removal. The removal of a UST in the State of California is a
routine and regulated procedure. As described in the IS/MND, if
the UST is encountered during site grading and excavation
activities, it would be required to be removed in accordance with
the existing standards and regulations of, and oversight by, the
Santa Clara County Fire District, based on compliance authority
granted through the California Code of Regulations, Title 23,
Division 3, Chapter 16, Underground Tank Regulations. Under
these regulations, soil samples from areas where USTs have been
removed or where soil contamination is suspected would be
required to be analyzed for hydrocarbons including gasoline and
diesel in accordance with procedures set forth by the Santa Clara
County Fire District. If hydrocarbons are identified in the soil, the
appropriate response/remedial measures would be required to
be implemented as directed by the Santa Clara County Fire
District with support review from the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board until all specified requirements are
satisfied and a Tank Closure Letter is issued. Compliance
requirements pertaining to the removal/closure of storage tanks
are set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Sections 25280
through 25299. It is important to note that although future soil
samples could be required if the UST is encountered, soil samples
have already been collected and tested, and found to be below
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Tier 1
Environmental Screening Levels and Soil Gas Environmental
Screening Levels.
CC 03-03-20
470 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 4
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
4 The Project would also increase traffic and noise in the area,
compromise air quality during a prolonged construction period not
contemplated by the General Plan EIR, burden water supply and
possibly exceed wastewater capacity if proposed experimental
wastewater collection planters fail to perform as intended.
Air Quality impacts are discussed in detail in Section II of the
IS/MND and were determined to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
Noise impacts are discussed in detail in Section XI of the IS/MND
and were determined to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2.
Transportation impacts are discussed in detail in Section XV of the
IS/MND and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Impacts related to water supply and wastewater capacity are
discussed in detail in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, of
the IS/MND and impacts were determined to be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
5 It’s not clear what criteria the City would use to determine whether
to grant the special permissions needed to support the size of the
Project.
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the
environmental review. No further response is required.
6 Several of the measures intended to mitigate environmental impacts
appear somewhat impractical if not fanciful.
The commenter’s opinion concerning the feasibility of the
mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, which is not
supported by evidence, is noted.
7 More investigation and analysis of the risks is needed particularly
regarding the UST’s, air quality, wastewater, noise and traffic,
preferably with relevant examples, before a proper assessment of
this Project could obtain.
The commenter’s assertion is noted. The IS/MND was prepared in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines using industry standards
pertinent to the impact topics analyzed, and analyzes the impact
found in Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis of
the IS/MND is based on scientific and factual data, which has
been reviewed by the City of Cupertino acting as the Lead Agency
and reflects its independent judgment and conclusions. The
commenter provides no evidence to support this assertion.
Please refer to response to Comment #4.
CC 03-03-20
471 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 5
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
8 The Project site, a 1.29-acre parcel at 10931 North De Anza
Boulevard, is currently developed with a one-story Goodyear Auto
Service Center. The proposal calls for demolishing the existing
building before constructing the hotel, which would include four
levels of below-grade parking and some modest landscaping. The site
is designated under the General Plan as Commercial/Residential, the
Zoning District, General Commercial (CG) with special development
regulations (rg), referred to as CG-rg. Special permissions have been
sought to increase building height and reduce setback.
While the hotel is a permitted use and its construction might not
exceed the hotel room maximum contemplated by the General Plan
EIR, the CG zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding
development to establish retail, office and services “that ensure the
maximum compatibility with surrounding residential
areas.”(emphasis added). Development in this district is also intended
to provide goods and services “while minimizing adverse traffic
impacts resulting from commercial development.”
The comment is noted.
9 How compatible would another hotel so close to its competitor be to
surrounding residential areas especially as it would increase traffic in
the area?
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the
environmental review. No further response is required.
10 Would the proposed hotel shuttle from the airport even if offered to
residents at a discounted rate, as the proposal provides, actually
mitigate the anticipated traffic increase and air quality impact? Has
such a service ever done so?
The hotel shuttle is not intended to mitigate any impacts
identified in the IS/MND. As discussed in Section XV,
Transportation, of the IS/MND all transportation impacts were
found to be less than significant without mitigation. The impact
conclusions and mitigation measures required to mitigate air
quality impacts as discussed in Section II, Air Quality, did not
assume the use of the hotel shuttle.
11 What criteria would the City use to determine whether to grant the
two special permissions needed to support the size of the Project,
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the
environmental review. No further response is required.
CC 03-03-20
472 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 6
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
which would exceed zoning height and setback restrictions? How are
such matters decided? It’s not clear from the Report.
12 Demolition and construction would take place over a two-year period
- August 2020 to 2022 – and it would adversely impact air quality.
How much is very difficult to ascertain from Air Quality and Health
Risk Assessments in Appendices A and B, which fail to interpret the
data provided in a meaningful way. The only clear statement
provided is that cancer risk for the maximum exposed off-site
resident just from Project construction activities would be 33.4 in a
million, greatly exceeding the 10 in a million significance threshold.
This alone, some might argue, should preclude the development
altogether. Does the City typically approve projects that pose a health
risk of this size?
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 provides some assurance that construction
equipment would be managed more carefully than it usually is, a
concept as surprising as it is troubling. Wouldn’t the test for
construction impact on cancer and human health presume the
equipment is being managed at the same level as the mitigation
measure describes? If not, why not? If so, what would be the value of
the mitigation measure? More information regarding the calculation
and construction equipment management is required.
The commenter provides no evidence to support this assertion.
Appendices A and B contain background and regulatory
information. In addition the modeling assumptions and outputs
have been included in Attachment B of this Memorandum. The
analysis and interpretation of the data can be found in Chapter 4,
Section II, Air Quality, and Section VII, Greenhouse Gas, of the
IS/MND.
The cancer risk of 33.4 in a million is the calculated cancer risk for
the unmitigated scenario. As stated by the commenter, this risk
value would exceed the 10 in a million significance threshold.
However, as discussed in Air Quality Impacts criterion (c) in
Section II of the IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-2, which would require that all equipment of 50
horsepower or more be fitted with Level 3 diesel particular filters,
construction-related cancer risk would be reduced to 5.1 in a
million (see Table 4-5) and would be below the 10 in a million
significance threshold. Therefore, construction-related cancer risk
would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
If the commenter is asking whether the 33.4 in a million cancer
risk value takes into account the requirements of Mitigation
Measure AQ-2, it does not. As mentioned in the response above,
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce
construction-related construction risk to 5.1 in a million as the
Level 3 diesel particular filters would reduce the amount of
CC 03-03-20
473 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 7
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
exhaust diesel particulate emissions generated from off-road
construction equipment that are 50 horsepower or more.
13 The Report asserts that Project operations would not be a major air
pollutant emissions source. Examples of projects that do generate
substantial TAC emissions are distribution centers with more than
100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units
(TRUs) per day. (Report, p. 4-16). What about all the trucks delivering
food and other hotel supplies to the Project throughout the day and
night? According to the Report, such deliveries would be less than
CARB’s recommended advisory criteria for distribution centers (100
trucks per day). How so? Are the calculations and interpretive
analysis available for closer review?
The analysis regarding hotspots at page 4-17 of the Report also
appears somewhat questionable. Is there an example of a delivery
drop-off of a size similar to the Project’s? Also, how would congestion
management away from the hotel work as a practical matter? More
explanation is needed.
It is assumed that the proposed hotel could generate up to
approximately 8 truck trips per day, which includes vendor, food,
and garbage truck trips, and is based on similar sized hotels. It is
unlikely that a hotel would generate 100 more trucks per day (i.e.,
200 truck trips), which would, over a 24-hour period, equate to
an average of 4 trucks (8 truck trips) per hour coming to the
proposed hotel. This number of trucks would be more typical for
warehousing operations, which are not part of the proposed
project. The model assumptions can be found in the revised
Appendix A of the IS/MND, which is included as an Attachment B
to this Memorandum. Appendix A has been revised to include
additional modeling worksheets that begin on page 45 of the
appendix.
The commenter does not provide further explanation or evidence
as to why commenter believes the CO hotspot analysis is
questionable or what is meant by congestion management away
from the hotel. The project impacts with respect to CO hotspots
were measured based on the size of the proposed project, not on
the characteristics of another project. As discussed in the CO
hotspot analysis in Section II of the IS/MND, for a CO hotspot to
occur, it would typically require 24,000 to 44,000 vehicles per
hour at a given intersection. This screening criterion is based on
research conducted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District and presented in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017).
As further discussed, because the project is only projected to
generate up to 84 peak hour trips, it would not exceed the
screening criterion and would not create a CO hotspot impact.
CC 03-03-20
474 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 8
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
14 We know that the Project would generate GHG emissions directly
and indirectly that could have a significant impact on the
environment. Sifting through the obfuscation, Table 4-6 shows
emissions that exceed BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD does not have
thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions,
BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and disclose
GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a
determination on the significance of these construction-generated
GHG emissions. Has the City made such a determination for the
Project?
There is inevitably confusion regarding the somewhat esoteric
calculations regarding this particular metric, but could the City please
explain the purpose of amortizing over a 30-year project lifetime the
estimated construction emissions? Is this simply a way to describe
the impact as less harmful than it would be? How else could
emissions during construction ever be found as they are here to be
less than significant? How does such a calculation support the
purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is
to provide full and frank disclosure of potential environmental
impacts a particular project poses?
How would the purchase of carbon offsets change GHG emissions?
Does the City track CAP and, if so, what conclusions may be drawn?
Do such offsets actually benefit the community? We know that a
busy urban hotel would be a huge, new source of GHG emissions but
virtuously worded undertakings without oversight are just not
meaningful.
Please see the discussion under "Construction Impacts" of Section
VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the IS/MND regarding the
potential construction related GHG impacts. As discussed in this
section, the quantified project-related construction GHG
emissions (amortized over 30 years) are compared to BAAQMD's
1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold.
Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year period
because construction activities would result in a one-time net
increase in emissions and represent a small portion of the overall
lifetime project GHG emissions. The 30-year amortization period
is the approach recommended by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District GHG Emissions Working Group and is based
on the service life of a building. Source:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf. The application of
this standard is a standard practice for environmental review
documents prepared by the City of Cupertino.
As stated in the IS/MND, BAAQMD does not have a construction-
related GHG significance threshold and recommends that a lead
agency disclose and evaluate project-related construction GHG
emissions impacts. Pursuant to BAAQMD recommendations,
project-related construction GHG emissions have been disclosed
and evaluated in Section VII of the IS/MND.
One (1) GHG offset credit represents one (1) metric ton of GHG
emissions. Thus, the number of GHG offset credits purchased
indicates the number of tons of GHG emissions that would be
CC 03-03-20
475 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 9
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
offset. There are two types of GHG credits, "ex poste" and "ex
ante". Ex poste credits are based on voluntary emissions
reductions beyond regulatory requirements already achieved by a
facility/entity. Ex ante credits are based on future actions that
reduce GHG emissions. These credits are typically verified by a
third-party auditor. The overall standards for credits are that they
must be additional, real, verifiable, and enforceable. As included
in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, GHG credits must be purchased
from carbon registries approved by the California Air Resources
Board, which ensures that the credits will go towards reducing
project-related GHG emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD GHG
emissions significance threshold.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 includes a provision that lists the
order of preference for where credits should be purchased. The
preference gives priority to within the city and then the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
As stated in the previous response, Mitigation Measure GHG-1
requires that GHG credits be purchased through a California Air
Resources Board-approved carbon registry. This mitigation
measure also requires the project applicant to submit to the City
the necessary documentation to verify the purchase of the
necessary GHG credits.
15 According to the Report at page 4-44, a geophysical survey was
performed only “within accessible areas of the site”. (emphasis
added). What about inaccessible areas? How does the survey
comport with requirements under the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC)?
The project site is occupied by an existing building, and a ground
penetrating radar (GPR) method cannot be performed where the
building is located. Accordingly, the GPR was performed in the
“accessible areas,” which include the perimeter areas around the
building structure. See Response to Comment #3.
CC 03-03-20
476 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 10
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
The Report notes the possibility that the geophysical survey missed
the one known UST, which EDR records indicate was installed at the
site in 1973 though there is no record of its removal. What is the
likelihood of uncovering still more undocumented USTs? Have there
been many such surprises in the Project area? Why would removal of
a UST be undocumented given the highly regulated requirements for
such removal under the California Environmental Reporting System?
The obvious concern is that without a better understanding of the
whether there are, in fact, no more remaining 200-gallon waste oil
UST’s underground, any disturbance of the site – including
construction of 4 levels of underground parking for the Project --
might set off an environmental disaster of contaminants entering
groundwater, ocean and air.
The incomplete geophysical survey also revealed very low detectable
concentrations of diesel, motor oil, Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs), and PCB contaminants were reported in the seven soil
borings. These soil concentrations were determined to be below the
San Francisco Regional Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tier 1
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The soil vapor samplings
indicated relatively low levels of VOCs also below the San Francisco
Bay RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs for soil gas. What would be the risk of
disturbing the site during construction considering the site is within
about a mile of quite a few schools (sensitive receptors)?
Based on the background research conducted for the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment and as discussed in the IS/MND, the likelihood of
uncovering more undocumented UST’s is low because the site
supported agricultural land uses between 1939 to 1968 and the
existing building was constructed in in 1971 and 1972.
Nonetheless, as for the potential discovery of the
aforementioned 200-gallon UST, any unknown USTs that are
discovered would be governed by the same regulatory
procedures presented in the IS/MND. Also, please see response
to Comment #3.
With respect to the commenter’s question regarding why the
removal of a UST would be undocumented, because there is no
information also has no bearing on the environmental analysis.
As described in the Section II, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, a Health
Risk Assessment, was prepared to assess impacts to sensitive
receptors that are most susceptible to further respiratory
distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children,
people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons
engaged in strenuous work or exercise.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the
residents of the Aviare Apartments, which is approximately 150
feet to the east of the project across North De Anza Boulevard. As
described in the IS/MND and shown on Table 4-5 (page 4-16)
impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 at this location.
Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors over a mile away, which
CC 03-03-20
477 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 11
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
is further than the nearest sensitive receptor, would also be
mitigated.
16 New requirements by the SWRCB require Applicant to prepare a
construction SWPPP that includes post-construction treatment
measures aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. The Report
asserts that with implementation of special mitigation measures as
provided, water quality impacts during construction would be less
than significant. In the absence of a Project SWPPP, such a conclusion
is at best premature. Are the planters described in the Report widely
in use? If so, how effective are they?
While the IS/MND describes that construction Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP would be required to include
post-construction treatment measures as mandated by new State
Water Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, no such
additional post-construction measures are required for the
project. This is because the project would comply with the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
requirements. As described in Section III, Project Description, of
the IS/MND (page 3-24), and Section IV, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of the IS/MND (page 4-52), the proposed project would
include several bio-retention areas and flow-through planters
which meet the 1,997 square feet of required treatment area as
set forth by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program C.3 requirements. Implementation of these
project features, which demonstrate compliance with the C.3
requirements of the Municipal Regional Storm Water National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit would ensure that
post-construction impacts to water quality would be less than
significant. Therefore, for clarification, the paragraph on page 4-
25 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows:
Because the project would disturb one or more acres during
construction, the project applicant would be required to
comply with State’s Construction General Permit and submit
PRDs to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The
PRDs include a NOI and a site-specific construction SWPPP
that describes the incorporation of best management
practices to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous
materials contamination of runoff during construction. New
CC 03-03-20
478 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 12
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
requirements by the SWRCB would also require the project
applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes post
construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing storm
water runoff. With implementation of these measures best
management practices, water quality impacts during
construction would be less than significant.
This revision does not affect any conclusions or significance
determinations provided in the IS/MND.
17 This Project would definitely conflict with land use plans in that it
would require two extraordinary permissions for size not
contemplated in the General Plan EIR, which makes it an unplanned
development. Contrary to area zoning guidelines, the Project would
cater not to the needs of actual residents but to visiting strangers. It
would also burden the area with additional traffic, air pollution and
noise.
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the
environmental review. No further response is required. Please
also refer to responses to Comments #4 and #7.
18 As the Report reveals, the Project during operations would likely
generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the area in excess of current standards. Mitigation measures include
design and selection of less noisy equipment to meet the City noise
thresholds. Does such equipment actually exist? Are there any
examples? Mitigation could also include dampening techniques, such
as walls, but no specifics are given. Or noisy equipment might be
located in less noise-sensitive areas, ‘where feasible’. What areas
might those be? More information, including practical examples, is
needed.
The stationary noise assessment at page 4-62 cannot be accurate.
Everybody knows that an urban hotel is necessarily a busy, noisy
place with people coming and going and calling to one another
throughout the day and night. How much noise does a rooftop bar
typically generate? Are there examples within the City that we might
Construction equipment varies by type, size, and model with
some generating more noise than others.
Because the precise design details of the project are unknown at
this time, as detailed in Mitigation Measure NOISE-2, the project
applicant would be required to retain a qualified acoustical
consultant to review the design-level plans for mechanical
equipment and, as necessary, make recommendations to meet
the City’s noise standards. The mitigation measure sets
performance standards that must be met through final design
review of the mechanical equipment. Weatherproof and sound-
rated enclosures are widely available for such equipment and the
use of parapet walls, which are proposed as part of the project, as
well as consideration of the final location of the equipment on
the roof are all methods that the acoustical consultant may
CC 03-03-20
479 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 13
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
study for comparison purposes? How many noise complaints does a
rooftop bar typically generate? What about rooftop mechanical
equipment? There must be ample acoustical statistics and relevant
case studies to draw on.
We know that operations “would potentially exceed the CMC
daytime noise limit of 65 dBA” and “potentially exceed the CMC
nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA for residential receptors.” Clearly, this
is not acceptable.
recommend to effectively comply with the City’s exterior noise
standards required by Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. No additional
information is required.
The commenter asserts the noise analysis is not accurate yet
provides no evidence to support this assertion. The noise analysis
presented in the IS/MND was prepared by a noise expert with
over 18 years of professional experience. The IS/MND was
prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines using
industry standards and analyzes topics pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist. The noise
analysis of the IS/MND is based on scientific and factual data and
prepared by a noise professional with 18 years of experience
which has been reviewed by the City of Cupertino acting as the
Lead Agency and reflects its independent judgment and
conclusions.
As discussed in the IS/MND (pages 4-62 and 4-63) the proposed
rooftop bar would be located approximately 200 feet across a
busy roadway from the nearest residential receptors opposite De
Anza Boulevard. The noise produced by a typical conversation
between two people at distance of 3 feet is about 60 dBA. At 200
feet, noise would attenuate to approximately 24 dBA, which
would not be audible over De Anza Boulevard and other local
traffic noise. The proposed six-foot metal rooftop panel, shown in
Figure 3-8, would provide additional shielding. Even when
accounting for several concurrent conversations between bar
patrons, noise would not be substantial. The commenter provides
no evidence that operational noise as part of the proposed
rooftop bar would result in a significant environmental impact.
CC 03-03-20
480 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 14
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
In addition, the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 and
NOISE-2 to ensure compliance with the City’s standards.
19 In addition to a mediocre, basic, functional architectural design, the
Project at seven stories (88 feet) would be a significant new source of
light and possibly glare. This is not adequately addressed in the
Report. Similarly, how much shadow might such an imposing
structure cast on surrounding uses?
The commenter asserts the assessment of impacts related to light
and glare are incomplete yet provides no evidence to support this
assertion. The City of Cupertino has no standards for shadow
studies, which are most commonly prepared to determine if a
project would result in substantial effects to outdoor recreation
facilities or other public areas. There are no such areas adjacent
to the project site.
20 How many calls to fire and police does a hotel of this size typically
generate? This, in our view, is a more relevant measure of the burden
the Project would create. How many sirens in the night could nearby
residents and hotel guests anticipate?
In urban communities such as the City of Cupertino, incidents
requiring responses from emergency service vehicles with sirens
are expected but are short in duration and unpredictable noise
events from a time and location standpoint. The IS/MND did not
account for unusual or episodic events, because predicting noise
impacts resulting from emergency service vehicles would be
speculative.
21 The Project would generate an estimated 1,562 net new daily vehicle
trips, with 73 net new trips occurring during the AM (morning) peak
hour and 87 net new trips occurring during the PM (evening) peak
hour. (Report, page 4-72). CMP analysis may not be required, as the
Report indicates, but that is nevertheless a significant traffic increase.
What is the estimated percentage traffic increase created by the
Project?
Truck activities (e.g., deliveries and garbage collection) for the project
are not expected to occur within the garage due to height and access
limitations. The majority of loading and unloading is expected to
occur within the proposed freight loading zone at the northwest
corner of the hotel building adjacent to the north elevator, an area
40 feet long by 9 feet wide. The noise generated by truck activities in
most cities typically continues throughout the day and night. In some
The commenter provides no evidence to support this assertion.
As explained in the IS/MND in Section XV, Transportation, all
transportation impacts were found to be less than significant
without mitigation.
Potential traffic noise increases due to the proposed project are
addressed on page 4-63 of the IS/MND and were found to be less
than significant. As discussed in the IS/MND, the permanent
traffic noise level increase from implementation of the project
was estimated to be 0.1 dBA, which is negligible. Loading from
truck deliveries would be conducted on the north side of the
building away from the nearest residential and hotel receptors. It
is anticipated that the proposed hotel could generate up to
CC 03-03-20
481 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 15
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
cities, trucks of a certain size entering and exiting a narrow alley are
required to signal with blaring horns much to the consternation of
residents. Are there any bylaws in Cupertino to restrict noise at a
loading zone?
approximately 8 truck trips per day, which includes vendor, food,
and garbage truck trips. The assumptions can be found in the
revised Appendix A of the IS/MND, which is included as an
Attachment B to this Memorandum. This would be a relatively
small number of truck deliveries, and comparable to the existing
number of truck deliveries to the auto service center and
surrounding commercial uses. The commenter provides no
evidence that this small number of truck deliveries would
constitute a significant environmental impact, and substantial
evidence in the IS/MND indicates that it would not. Nighttime
vehicle deliveries by the use of private roads, alleys or between
the building and any adjacent residential use are prohibited by
the City’s Municipal Code and, none of these conditions would be
present with implementation of the proposed project.
22 Yes, there are environmental impacts posed by this Project that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. As a practical
matter, a new hotel about a block from a competitor, one that boasts
a swimming pool and an attractive fountain, cannot really be said to
support the needs of residents, as zoning guidelines require. While
the Project may not exceed the hotel room maximum contemplated
by the General Plan EIR, the hotel would be significantly larger than
contemplated hence the requirement for two extraordinary
permissions, which could induce similar requests and unplanned
growth. The Report does not properly describe or address the impact
of increased traffic or noise the Project would impose on the area.
While the Project site is located in a special gateway area, there is
nothing special about the hotel’s architecture, which is neither
unique nor especially attractive. Nor are there any distinguishing
features, such as public art statuary or extraordinary plantings.
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the
environmental review. No further response is required. Please
also refer to responses to Comments #1 through #21.
CC 03-03-20
482 of 873
December 5, 2019 | Page 16
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Comment
No.
Comment Response
The Project would be bigger than contemplated in relevant planning
documents which would mean more noise and more traffic. A two-
year construction period that might disturb dangerous and still
undiscovered toxins not that far from a residential complex as well as
and quite a few schools (sensitive receptors) could pose a significant
adverse impact on human health.
More information particularly more practical analysis of the risks
would be needed to properly assess the potential impacts of this
Project.
CC 03-03-20
483 of 873
........................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENT A:
LATE COMMENT LETTER
CC 03-03-20
484 of 873
........................................................................................................................
CC 03-03-20
485 of 873
17901 Von Karman Ave, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 556-8714
www.better-neighborhoods.com/
December 2, 2019
Mr. Gian Martire
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: GianM@cupertino.org
Re: De Anza Hotel Project - Cupertino
Dear Mr. Martire,
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide questions and comments regarding the above-
referenced Project.
Better Neighborhoods is an organization established to help people have a voice in local
development decisions as prominent as that of planners and developers. Our aim is to encourage
smart growth consistent with the needs of the community while protecting the natural environment
and places of historic and aesthetic significance, supporting California’s need for affordable housing
and balancing the desire for growth with the need for features that make cities livable.
The proposed Project, a seven-story, 156-room hotel with rooftop bar and lounge, would require
two extraordinary permissions to overcome height and setback restrictions while offering little in
return in the way of goods and services to those in the local residential area, as relevant planning
goals require. It’s actually about a block from another hotel, one with an attractive fountain and a
heated swimming pool. Despite its plum location in the De Anza Gateway, the Project falls short of
the special gateway standards calling for high-quality architecture and/or unique features, such as
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art. The Project design
is basic, box-like, functional - rather pedestrian, really - with no distinguishing features.
It would require demolishing the Goodyear Auto Center at the site, potentially releasing assorted
toxins, including at least one known 200-gallon waste oil Underground Storage Tank (UST)
CC 03-03-20
486 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 2
undiscovered during an incomplete geotechnical survey but whose removal is undocumented with
authorities.
The Project would also increase traffic and noise in the area, compromise air quality during a
prolonged construction period not contemplated by the General Plan EIR, burden water supply and
possibly exceed wastewater capacity if proposed experimental wastewater collection planters fail to
perform as intended.
It’s not clear what criteria the City would use to determine whether to grant the special permissions
needed to support the size of the Project.
Several of the measures intended to mitigate environmental impacts appear somewhat impractical if
not fanciful.
More investigation and analysis of the risks is needed particularly regarding the UST’s, air quality,
wastewater, noise and traffic, preferably with relevant examples, before a proper assessment of this
Project could obtain.
Zoning
The Project site, a 1.29-acre parcel at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, is currently developed with
a one-story Goodyear Auto Service Center. The proposal calls for demolishing the existing building
before constructing the hotel, which would include four levels of below-grade parking and some
modest landscaping. The site is designated under the General Plan as Commercial/Residential, the
Zoning District, General Commercial (CG) with special development regulations (rg), referred to as
CG-rg. Special permissions have been sought to increase building height and reduce setback.
While the hotel is a permitted use and its construction might not exceed the hotel room maximum
contemplated by the General Plan EIR, the CG zoning district is intended to provide a means of
guiding development to establish retail, office and services “that ensure the maximum compatibility
with surrounding residential areas.”(emphasis added). Development in this district is also
intended to provide goods and services “while minimizing adverse traffic impacts resulting from
commercial development.”
How compatible would another hotel so close to its competitor be to surrounding residential areas
especially as it would increase traffic in the area? Would the proposed hotel shuttle from the airport
even if offered to residents at a discounted rate, as the proposal provides, actually mitigate the
anticipated traffic increase and air quality impact? Has such a service ever done so?
What criteria would the City use to determine whether to grant the two special permissions needed
to support the size of the Project, which would exceed zoning height and setback restrictions? How
are such matters decided? It’s not clear from the Report.
CC 03-03-20
487 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 3
Construction
Demolition and construction would take place over a two-year period - August 2020 to 2022 – and
it would adversely impact air quality. How much is very difficult to ascertain from Air Quality and
Health Risk Assessments in Appendices A and B, which fail to interpret the data provided in a
meaningful way. The only clear statement provided is that cancer risk for the maximum exposed
off-site resident just from Project construction activities would be 33.4 in a million, greatly
exceeding the 10 in a million significance threshold. This alone, some might argue, should preclude
the development altogether. Does the City typically approve projects that pose a health risk of this
size?
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 provides some assurance that construction equipment would be managed
more carefully than it usually is, a concept as surprising as it is troubling. Wouldn’t the test for
construction impact on cancer and human health presume the equipment is being managed at the
same level as the mitigation measure describes? If not, why not? If so, what would be the value of
the mitigation measure? More information regarding the calculation and construction equipment
management is required.
Project Operations
The Report asserts that Project operations would not be a major air pollutant emissions source.
Examples of projects that do generate substantial TAC emissions are distribution centers with more
than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day. (Report, p. 4-
16). What about all the trucks delivering food and other hotel supplies to the Project throughout the
day and night? According to the Report, such deliveries would be less than CARB’s recommended
advisory criteria for distribution centers (100 trucks per day). How so? Are the calculations and
interpretive analysis available for closer review?
The analysis regarding hotspots at page 4-17 of the Report also appears somewhat questionable. Is
there an example of a delivery drop-off of a size similar to the Project’s? Also, how would
congestion management away from the hotel work as a practical matter? More explanation is
needed.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
We know that the Project would generate GHG emissions directly and indirectly that could have a
significant impact on the environment. Sifting through the obfuscation, Table 4-6 shows emissions
that exceed BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions, BAAQMD advises that the lead agency should quantify and
disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination on the
CC 03-03-20
488 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 4
significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions. Has the City made such a
determination for the Project?
There is inevitably confusion regarding the somewhat esoteric calculations regarding this particular
metric, but could the City please explain the purpose of amortizing over a 30-year project lifetime
the estimated construction emissions? Is this simply a way to describe the impact as less harmful
than it would be? How else could emissions during construction ever be found as they are here to be
less than significant? How does such a calculation support the purpose of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is to provide full and frank disclosure of potential
environmental impacts a particular project poses?
How would the purchase of carbon offsets change GHG emissions? Does the City track CAP and, if
so, what conclusions may be drawn? Do such offsets actually benefit the community? We know that
a busy urban hotel would be a huge, new source of GHG emissions but virtuously worded
undertakings without oversight are just not meaningful.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the Report at page 4-44, a geophysical survey was performed only “within accessible
areas of the site”. (emphasis added). What about inaccessible areas? How does the survey comport
with requirements under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)?
The Report notes the possibility that the geophysical survey missed the one known UST, which
EDR records indicate was installed at the site in 1973 though there is no record of its removal. What
is the likelihood of uncovering still more undocumented USTs? Have there been many such
surprises in the Project area? Why would removal of a UST be undocumented given the highly
regulated requirements for such removal under the California Environmental Reporting System?
The obvious concern is that without a better understanding of the whether there are, in fact, no more
remaining 200-gallon waste oil UST’s underground, any disturbance of the site – including
construction of 4 levels of underground parking for the Project -- might set off an environmental
disaster of contaminants entering groundwater, ocean and air.
The incomplete geophysical survey also revealed very low detectable concentrations of diesel,
motor oil, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and PCB contaminants were reported in the seven
soil borings. These soil concentrations were determined to be below the San Francisco Regional
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The soil vapor
samplings indicated relatively low levels of VOCs also below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier
1 ESLs for soil gas. What would be the risk of disturbing the site during construction considering
the site is within about a mile of quite a few schools (sensitive receptors)?
CC 03-03-20
489 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 5
Hydrology and Water Quality
New requirements by the SWRCB require Applicant to prepare a construction SWPPP that includes
post-construction treatment measures aimed at minimizing storm water runoff. The Report asserts
that with implementation of special mitigation measures as provided, water quality impacts during
construction would be less than significant. In the absence of a Project SWPPP, such a conclusion is
at best premature. Are the planters described in the Report widely in use? If so, how effective are
they?
Land Use and Planning
This Project would definitely conflict with land use plans in that it would require two extraordinary
permissions for size not contemplated in the General Plan EIR, which makes it an unplanned
development. Contrary to area zoning guidelines, the Project would cater not to the needs of actual
residents but to visiting strangers. It would also burden the area with additional traffic, air pollution
and noise.
Noise
As the Report reveals, the Project during operations would likely generate a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the area in excess of current standards. Mitigation measures
include design and selection of less noisy equipment to meet the City noise thresholds. Does such
equipment actually exist? Are there any examples? Mitigation could also include dampening
techniques, such as walls, but no specifics are given. Or noisy equipment might be located in less
noise-sensitive areas, ‘where feasible’. What areas might those be? More information, including
practical examples, is needed.
The stationary noise assessment at page 4-62 cannot be accurate. Everybody knows that an urban
hotel is necessarily a busy, noisy place with people coming and going and calling to one another
throughout the day and night. How much noise does a rooftop bar typically generate? Are there
examples within the City that we might study for comparison purposes? How many noise
complaints does a rooftop bar typically generate? What about rooftop mechanical equipment? There
must be ample acoustical statistics and relevant case studies to draw on.
We know that operations “would potentially exceed the CMC daytime noise limit of 65 dBA” and
“potentially exceed the CMC nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA for residential receptors.” Clearly,
this is not acceptable.
Light, Glare and Shadow
In addition to a mediocre, basic, functional architectural design, the Project at seven stories (88 feet)
would be a significant new source of light and possibly glare. This is not adequately addressed in
CC 03-03-20
490 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 6
the Report. Similarly, how much shadow might such an imposing structure cast on surrounding
uses?
Public Services
How many calls to fire and police does a hotel of this size typically generate? This, in our view, is a
more relevant measure of the burden the Project would create. How many sirens in the night could
nearby residents and hotel guests anticipate?
Transportation
The Project would generate an estimated 1,562 net new daily vehicle trips, with 73 net new trips
occurring during the AM (morning) peak hour and 87 net new trips occurring during the PM
(evening) peak hour. (Report, page 4-72). CMP analysis may not be required, as the Report
indicates, but that is nevertheless a significant traffic increase. What is the estimated percentage
traffic increase created by the Project?
Truck activities (e.g., deliveries and garbage collection) for the project are not expected to occur
within the garage due to height and access limitations. The majority of loading and unloading is
expected to occur within the proposed freight loading zone at the northwest corner of the hotel
building adjacent to the north elevator, an area 40 feet long by 9 feet wide. The noise generated by
truck activities in most cities typically continues throughout the day and night. In some cities, trucks
of a certain size entering and exiting a narrow alley are required to signal with blaring horns much
to the consternation of residents. Are there any bylaws in Cupertino to restrict noise at a loading
zone?
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Yes, there are environmental impacts posed by this Project that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable. As a practical matter, a new hotel about a block from a competitor, one
that boasts a swimming pool and an attractive fountain, cannot really be said to support the needs of
residents, as zoning guidelines require. While the Project may not exceed the hotel room maximum
contemplated by the General Plan EIR, the hotel would be significantly larger than contemplated
hence the requirement for two extraordinary permissions, which could induce similar requests and
unplanned growth. The Report does not properly describe or address the impact of increased traffic
or noise the Project would impose on the area. While the Project site is located in a special gateway
area, there is nothing special about the hotel’s architecture, which is neither unique nor especially
attractive. Nor are there any distinguishing features, such as public art statuary or extraordinary
plantings.
The Project would be bigger than contemplated in relevant planning documents which would mean
more noise and more traffic. A two-year construction period that might disturb dangerous and still
CC 03-03-20
491 of 873
Mr. Gian Martire
Re: DeAnza Hotel Project
December 2, 2019
Page 7
undiscovered toxins not that far from a residential complex as well as and quite a few schools
(sensitive receptors) could pose a significant adverse impact on human health.
More information particularly more practical analysis of the risks would be needed to properly
assess the potential impacts of this Project.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Goolsby
President and CEO
Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
CC 03-03-20
492 of 873
CC 03-03-20
493 of 873
........................................................................................................................
ATTACHMENT B:
REVISED APPENDIX A
CC 03-03-20
494 of 873
........................................................................................................................
CC 03-03-20
495 of 873
........................................................................................................................
REVISED APPENDIX A:
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DATA
CC 03-03-20
496 of 873
........................................................................................................................
CC 03-03-20
497 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 1
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
1. Air Quality
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at State and federal levels for criteria air pollutants.
In addition, both the State and federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The
City of San Francisco is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and
regulations imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD ), as well as the California
AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and national AAQS adopted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or
guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. The discussion also
identifies the natural factors in the air basin that affect air pollution.
1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
1.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the U.S. Congress and has been amended several times. The
1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory
scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment
requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air
quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other
pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to
achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be
more restrictive than the National AAQS.
Criteria air pollutants are the air pollutants for which AAQS have been developed that are regulated under the
CAA. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of
safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors”
most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum
standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants,
which are shown in Table 1. These pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5),
and lead (Pb). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace
with a reasonable margin of safety.
CC 03-03-20
498 of 873
Page 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and
solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily
gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships,
and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic
Mean * 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur
recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays).
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)4
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays).
24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past
source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of
suspended particulate matter, which is a
complex mixture of tiny particles that consists
of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid
coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These
particles vary greatly in shape, size and
chemical composition, and can be made up
of many different materials such as metals,
soot, soil, dust, and salt.
CC 03-03-20
499 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 3
Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Primary Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with
the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during
bacterial decomposition of sulfur-containing
organic substances. Also, it can be present in
sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy
exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild,
sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to
make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and
vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage plants, and
hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017, March, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/ meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf, accessed January 3, 2019. Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. a California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in
Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained
when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. c On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. d On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards
(primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and
secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
e On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
1.1.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant.
Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or
man-made.
1.1.2.1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and
State law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are
emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
CC 03-03-20
500 of 873
Page 4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and
lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria
air pollutants,” which means that AAQS have been established for them. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant
precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the
atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants.
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is
presented below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of
carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO
concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little or no wind, when surface-
based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal
combustion engines, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the air
basin. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a
vehicle is moving at low speeds. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile are lowest at
about 45 miles per hour (mph) for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin to increase again at
higher speeds. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and
reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity 1. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and
other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic
lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO
concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.2 The
air basin is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria
levels.3
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon
atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other
sources include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving,
and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are
not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as
O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation
of O3, BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of
O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. The
principal component of NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form
NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 is an acute irritant and at
equal concentrations more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only
potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary
fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at
concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-
red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from
1 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017, April 7. Six Common Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
3 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
CC 03-03-20
501 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 5
atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high
pressure.4,5 The air basin is designated an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and
California AAQS.6
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous
fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and
from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low
sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When SO2 forms sulfates (SO4) in the
atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a
primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the
upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do
greater harm by injuring lung tissue.7 The air basin is designated an attainment area for SO2 under the
California and National AAQS.8
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such
as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and
regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004-inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles,
or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or
0.0001 inch).
Some particulate matter, such as pollen, occurs naturally. Most particulate matter in the air basin is
caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor
vehicles. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease.
PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge
deep in the lungs. An EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into
the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current
PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease,
nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, increased
respiratory symptoms (e.g. irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles
are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the air basin. Wood burning in fireplaces
and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.9
Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are
naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. These health effects include premature death
and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals
with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individual
with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
5 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017, April 7. Six Common Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
6 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
8 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
CC 03-03-20
502 of 873
Page 6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
mechanisms.10 Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified a carcinogen by CARB. The air basin is
designated nonattainment under the California AAQS for PM10 and nonattainment under both the
California and National AAQS for PM2.5.11,12
Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOx,—
both by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo photochemical reactions in the
presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest
during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create
favorable conditions to the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already
suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. O3 levels usually build up during the day
and peak in the afternoon. Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the
airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as
asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage
lung tissue. O3 can also damage plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.13 The air
basin is designated nonattainment of the 1-hour California AAQS and 8-hour California and
National AAQS for O3.14
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The
major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of
the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.
The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are
waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.
Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the
air. In the early 1970s, the EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in
gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. The EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a
result of the EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the
transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.15 The air basin is designated
in attainment of the California and National AAQS for lead.16 Because emissions of lead are found
only in projects that are permitted by BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the
proposed project.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans
and Local Planning.
11 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
12 On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule to determine that the SFBAAB has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 National
AAQS. This action suspends federal State Implementation Plan planning requirements for the Bay Area. The SFBAAB will continue
to be designated nonattainment for the National 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as BAAQMD elects to submit a
redesignation request and a maintenance plan to EPA and EPA approves the proposed redesignation.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
14 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
16 California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
CC 03-03-20
503 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 7
1.1.2.2 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California
Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these
contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a
present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant
to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S. Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant.
Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is
authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase
in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot
Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets up a formal procedure for
CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control
measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e. a point
below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If
there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize
emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that it identified as having no
safe threshold.
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot”
Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are
quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority
facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required
to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings.
At the time of the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as
TACs.17 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high
risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be
attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled
engines.
In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust
were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their
extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar
regions of the lungs.
CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial
Motor Vehicle Idling
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and
Idling at Schools
17 California Air Resources Board , 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
CC 03-03-20
504 of 873
Page 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the
vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and
gasoline-dispensing facilities.18 This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated
health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on
the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the
adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that
proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects.
There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks
from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3 butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB
recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as
much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.
1.1.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and
maintained in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD is responsible for:
Adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources.
Issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants.
Inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants.
Responding to citizen complaints.
Monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions.
Awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Conducting public education campaigns.
Air quality management planning.
Air quality conditions in the air basin have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955.19
The BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMPs) to attain ambient air quality standards in the
SFBAAB. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans (OAPs) for the National O3 standard and clean
air plans for the California O3 standard. The BAAQMD prepares these AQMPs in coordination with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19,
2017, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories,
ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools.
18 California Air Resources Board. 2005, April. Air Quality Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
CC 03-03-20
505 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 9
1.1.3.1 BAAQMD BAY AREA CLEAN AIR PLAN
2017 Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay
Area
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April
19, 2017. The 2017 Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues in
providing the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. Similar to
the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, the 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based
on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California CAA. Additionally, it sets
a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent by 2020. Furthermore, the 2017
Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s
2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a
post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following 20:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public
transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three to
five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The
control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and
GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1)
stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6)
waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based
on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint
for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-
development.
CC 03-03-20
506 of 873
Page 10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
1.1.3.2 BAAQMD’S COMMUNITY AIR RISK EVALUATION PROGRAM (CARE)
The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and
reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. Based on findings of the latest
report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics.
Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant
contributors: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions, and benzene
contributed 3 percent. Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and
acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to
emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The
most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM,
including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor
craft (13 percent). A 75 percent reduction in DPM was predicted between 2005 and 2015 when the inventory
accounted for CARB’s diesel regulations. Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent
between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.21
Modeled cancer risks from TAC in 2005 were highest near sources of DPM: near core urban areas, along
major roadways and freeways, and near maritime shipping terminals. The highest modeled risks were found
east of San Francisco, near West Oakland, and the Maritime Port of Oakland. BAAQMD has identified seven
impacted communities in the Bay Area:
1. Western Contra Costa County and the cities of Richmond and San Pablo
2. Western Alameda County along the Interstate 880 (I-880) corridor and the cities of Berkeley, Alameda,
Oakland, and Hayward
3. San Jose
4. Eastern side of San Francisco
5. Concord
6. Vallejo
7. Pittsburgh and Antioch
The project site is not within a CARE-program impacted community.
The major contributor to acute and chronic non-cancer health effects in the air basin is acrolein (C3H4O).
Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and military
airports.22 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for acrolein.
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air
Risk Program (CARE) Retrospective and Path Forward (2004–2013), April.
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, Phase I Findings and Policy
Recommendations Related to Toxic Air Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay Area.
CC 03-03-20
507 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 11
Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not available, the
BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analysis for acrolein emissions.23
1.1.3.3 REGULATION 7, ODOROUS SUBSTANCES
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the City. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which
states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons
or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under
BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be
declared a public nuisance.
1.1.3.4 OTHER BAAQMD REGULATIONS
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers a number of specific
regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to individual development projects
allowed under the proposed General Plan, including:
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing)
1.1.4 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara
County. VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local
jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. VTA’s
latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2017 Congestion Management Program Document.
VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed
by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative
transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, VTA’s updated CMP
includes multi-modal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management
strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional vehicle miles traveled in accordance with Senate Bill
375. The 2017 CMP also includes a discussion of Senate Bill 743 implementation and relationship to the
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program, Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines.
CC 03-03-20
508 of 873
Page 12 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
CMP auto level of service standard. Elements discussed in the 2017 CMP for Santa Clara County, include
the following:
Transportation Analysis Standards Element:
Monitor and submit report on the level of service on CMP roadway network intersections using
CMP software and procedures
Monitor performance of CMP rural highways and freeways.
Multimodal Performance Measures Element:
Collect available transportation performance measurement data for use in land use analysis,
deficiency plans and the CIP.
Transportation Model and Database Element:
Certify that the CMP model us consistent with the regional model.
Certify that member agency models are consistent with the CMP model.
Land Use Impact Analysis Element:
Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for projects that generate 100 or more peak hour
trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines schedule.
Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for projects generating TIAs.
Prepare quarterly report on VTA comments and local agency adopted conditions for VTA Board,
Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, Technical
Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee.
Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to the CMP on all land use projects approved from July
1 to June 30 of the previous year.
Capital Improvement Program Element:
Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the level of service on the designated
system and to maintain transit performance standards.
Monitoring and Conformance Element:
Outline the requirements and procedures established for conducting annual traffic LOS and land use
monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and Community Form and Impact Analysis
Elements.
Multimodal Improvement Plan Element:
Prepare deficiency plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that are projected to
violate LOS standards using the adopted deficiency plan requirements.
Submit Deficiency Plan Implementation Status Report as part of annual monitoring.
CC 03-03-20
509 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 13
1.1.5 Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter
Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the Air District are required to
register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the Air District and the MTC, the
rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion
by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and
walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four commuter benefit options
including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided transit, and alternative commute
benefit.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.1.6 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma
County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural
factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources
and ambient conditions.24
1.1.6.1 METEOROLOGY
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits, resulting in a western coast gap,
Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, Carquinez Strait, which allow air to flow in and out of the SFBAAB
and the Central Valley.
The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell.
During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in
stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from
below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast.
The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the
presence of the cold water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along
the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward,
resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions
coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.
1.1.6.2 WIND PATTERNS
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over
the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly
winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate.
24 This section describing the air basin is from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, Appendix C: Sample Air
Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
CC 03-03-20
510 of 873
Page 14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the
northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.
Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the
Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San
Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only 7
knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon Islands.
The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near
ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer
deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part
upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow
of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result.
In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well
as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime
drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from
the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the
SFBAAB.
1.1.6.3 TEMPERATURE
Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating
between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large-
scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and
small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature
gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold water
from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35
degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually
decreases to less than 10ºF.
In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the
temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in
temperature is large.
1.1.6.4 PRECIPITATION
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through
March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can
vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual
rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys.
During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical
mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low
(i.e. air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant
conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, when mixing and ventilation are low
and pollutant levels build up.
CC 03-03-20
511 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 15
1.1.6.5 WIND CIRCULATION
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted
into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and
winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some
sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime).
The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley during the day,
and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air
provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels.
1.1.6.6 INVERSIONS
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions
significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e. the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for
diluting air contaminants near the ground. There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the
SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are more
common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during
inversions.
1.1.7 Existing Ambient Air Quality
1.1.7.1 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE SFBAAB
Areas that meet AAQS are classified attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are
classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to
severe and extreme. The attainment status for the air basin is shown in Table 2. The air basin is currently
designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California
PM10 AAQS.
Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005)
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment1
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
1 In December 2014, US EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 National AAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, January 5. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status).
CC 03-03-20
512 of 873
Page 16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
1.1.7.2 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site
are best documented by measurements made by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD monitoring station closest to
the project site is the San Jose – Jackson Street Avenue Monitoring Station. Data from this station is
summarized in Table 3. The data show occasional violations of the State and federal O3 standards, as well as
state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been exceeded
in the last five years in the vicinity of the project site.
Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm
State 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Maximum 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
1
1
0.093
0.079
0
0
0
0.089
0.066
0
2
2
0.094
0.065
0
0
0
0.087
0.066
0
4
3
0.121
0.098
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 (ppm)
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0
58.7
0
58.4
0
49.3
0
51.1
0
67.5
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
5
0
55.8
1
0
56.4
1
0
58.8
0
0
40.0
6
0
69.4
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
6
57.7
2
60.4
2
49.4
0
22.6
6
49.7
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016), Accessed January 4, 2019, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station for 03, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Notes: ppm: parts per million; ppb: parts per billion; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter
1.1.7.3 EXISTING EMISSIONS
The project site is currently developed with an 8,323 square foot Good Year Auto Service Center building.
The current site uses generate criteria air pollutants emissions from energy use, transportation, and area sources
associated with the operation of the Auto Service Center.
1.1.8 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive
receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for
extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors
include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive
to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory
CC 03-03-20
513 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 17
functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the
enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air
pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since the majority of the workers tend to
stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the
population.
The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residences at the Aviare Apartments to the east of the
project site. These residences are approximately 140 feet east of the project site.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality
impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures
for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA
requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air
quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of
significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified
procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts; however, this later amendment regarding
risk and hazards was the subject of the December 17, 2015 Supreme Court decision (California Building
Industry Association v BAAQMD), which clarified that CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts of the
environment on a project.25
1.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed project qualifies as a project-level project under BAAQMD’s criteria. For project-level analyses,
BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria that would be applicable to the proposed
project. If a project exceeds the screening level, it would be required to conduct a full analysis using
BAAQMD’s significance criteria.
25 On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply
with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not
determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a
project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination
of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. Following the court’s order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health
impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The Alameda
County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science or evidence
supporting the thresholds, and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science and reasoning contained in the
BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. On August 13, 2013, the First
District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. (California
Building Industry Association versus BAAQMD, Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013).)
CC 03-03-20
514 of 873
Page 18 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Regional Significance Criteria
BAAQMD’s criteria for regional significance for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in
Table 4. Criteria for both construction and operational phases of the project are shown.
Table 4 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (Tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.
Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO
hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which is 9.0
ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). However, with the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the
California and National AAQS, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined. Because CO
concentrations have improved, BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are
met:
Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan,
and local congestion management agency plans.
The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles
per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g. tunnel, parking
garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).26
Odors
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain
odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public
Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines,
Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.
CC 03-03-20
515 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 19
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-
day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land
uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants,
landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and
chemical plants.27
1.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to the siting of a
new source. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions
of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The purpose of this environmental
evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant
effects of the environment on the proposed project (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369 [Case No. S213478]). CEQA does not require an
environmental evaluation to analyze the environmental effects of attracting development and people to an
area. However, the environmental evaluation must analyze the impacts of environmental hazards on future
users when the proposed project exacerbates an existing environmental hazard or condition or if there is an
exception to this exemption identified in the Public Resources Code. Schools, residential, commercial, and
office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards, so
these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects.
For assessing community risk and hazards, sources within a 1,000-foot radius are considered. Sources are
defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks
per day), and permitted sources.28,29
The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate
concentrations of air pollutants at the surrounding residential receptors. The BAAQMD has adopted
screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.30 Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts
should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related
characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site receptors, as applicable.31
The project threshold identified below is applied to the proposed project’s construction phase emissions:
27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines,
Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.
29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and
Hazards.
30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluations during Construction.
31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines,
Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.
CC 03-03-20
516 of 873
Page 20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Community Risk and Hazards – Project
Project-level construction emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from the proposed project to individual sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a
potentially significant community health risk:
Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute)
hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution;
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average
PM2.5 from a single source would be a significant, cumulatively considerable contribution.32
Community Risk and Hazards – Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the
1,000-foot evaluation zone.
A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and
foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a
receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:
Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or
An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index
(from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or
0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.33
Current BAAQMD guidance recommends the determination of cancer risks using the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) methodology, which was originally adopted in
2003.34,35 In February 2015, OEHHA adopted new health risk assessment guidance which includes several
efforts to be more protective of children’s health. These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity
factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and
age-specific breathing rates.36 However, BAAQMD has not formally adopted the new OEHHA methodology
into their CEQA guidance. To be conservative, the cancer risks associated with project implementation and
significance conclusions were determined using the new 2015 OEHHA guidance for risk assessments.
32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines,
Appendix D: Threshold of Significance Justification.
33 Ibid.
34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and
Hazards.
35 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments.
36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments.
CC 03-03-20
517 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 21
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is
fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG—
water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase
in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the
IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.37,38,39 The major GHG are briefly
described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas,
and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other
chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere
(sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.
Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of
organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during
combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial
processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These
gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are
sometimes referred to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and
used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol
propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere,
stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they
break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-depleting gases and are therefore being
replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They
were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial,
37 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
38 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However,
water vapor is not considered a pollutant because it is considered part of the feedback loop of changing radiative forcing rather than a
primary cause of change.
39 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making
it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing
component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions
globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing
emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from
diesel engines and burning activities. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon yet due to ongoing
work related to resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include
black carbon.
CC 03-03-20
518 of 873
Page 22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes
and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone
layer, but they are strong GHGs.
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and
fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane
[C2F6]) were introduced, along with HFCs, as alternatives to the ozone-depleting substances.
In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in
manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global
warming potential.
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas, soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly
soluble in water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and
distribution systems as an insulator.
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon
atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric
ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are
also GHGs. 40,41
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs
have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high global warming potential (GWP)
gases. Table 5 lists the GHG and their relative GWP compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs
to CO2-equivalent (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation
in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Second Assessment
Report, GWP values for CH4 are such that a project generating 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be
equivalent to 210 MT of CO2.
40 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.
41 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
CC 03-03-20
519 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 23
Table 5 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2
GHGs
Second Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Fourth Assessment Report Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Second Assessment Report Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2a
Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 50 to 200 1 1
Methaneb (CH4) 12 (±3) 12 21 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 114 310 298
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996, Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1996, New York: Cambridge University Press; and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Notes: The IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values in its Fifth Assessment Report (2013) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes
of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in the Second Assessment Report are still used by SCAQMD to maintain consistency in GHG emissions modeling. In addition, the 2008 Scoping Plan was based on the GWP values in the Second Assessment Report.
a Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2.
b The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the
production of CO2 is not included.
2.1 CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES AND RELATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
In 2018, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2016 emissions using the GWPs in
IPCC’s AR4.42 Based on these GWPs, California produced 429.4 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2016.
California’s transportation sector was the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.5 percent
of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 23.4 percent, and electric power generation
made up 16.1 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include
commercial and residential (12.0 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.9 percent) and other (solvents and
chemicals) at 0.2 percent.43
California’s GHG emissions have followed a declining trend since 2007. In 2016, emissions from routine
GHG emitting activities statewide were 429 MMTCO2e, 12 MMTCO2e lower than 2015 levels or 12
MMTCO2e lower than 2015 levels. This represents an overall decrease of 13 percent since peak levels in 2004
and 2 MMTCO2e below the 1990 level and the State’s 2020 GHG target. During the 2000 to 2016 period, per
capita GHG emissions in California have continued to drop from a peak in 2001 of 14.0 MTCO2e per capita
to 10.8 MTCO2e per capita in 2016, a 23 percent decrease. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate
that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of
gross domestic product (GDP)) is declining, representing a 38 percent decline since the 2001 peak, while the
state’s GDP has grown 41 percent during this period.44
2.2 HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
42 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide
GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006).
43 California Air Resources Board, 2018, 2018 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2016: By Category as
Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm, accessed November 20, 2018.
44 California Air Resources Board, 2018, California Greenhouse Emissions for 2000 to 2016 – Trends of Emissions and Other
Indicators, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm, accessed November 20, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
520 of 873
Page 24 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human
activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial
times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million per year since 1960, mainly due to
combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.45 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of
climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is
warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the
chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.46 In the past,
gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc.
However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate
change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.47
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict. Projections
of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on
different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate
record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-
change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of
certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.
Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls)
over most areas.
Larger areas affected by drought.
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).
2.3 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR CALIFORNIA
Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate
change. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) from 1895 to 2011,
and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada. The years from 2014 through 2016 have shown
unprecedented temperatures with 2014 being the warmest. By 2050, California is projected to warm by
approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By
2100, average temperatures could increase by 4.1 to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels.
In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer
winter and spring temperatures; 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow; 3) a decrease in the
amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones; 4) advanced shift in
45 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
46 California Climate Action Team, 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
CC 03-03-20
521 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 25
the timing of snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring; and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the
timing of spring flower blooms. Overall, California has become drier over time with 5 of the 5 years of
severe to extreme drought occurring between 2007 and 2016, with unprecedented dry years occurring in 2015
and 2015. Statewide precipitation has become increasingly variable from year to year with the driest
consecutive 4 years occurring from 2012 to 2015. According to the California Climate Action Team—a
committee of state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the
Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency—even if actions could be taken to immediately
curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric
lifetimes (see Table 4.6-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6 degrees
Celsius (°C) (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now
considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 4.6-2 and include
impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and
energy.
Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include:
Water Resources Impacts. By late-century, all projections show drying, and half of the projections
suggest 30-year average precipitation will decline by more than 10 percent below the historical average.
This drying trend is caused by an apparent decline in the frequency of rain and snowfall. Even in
projections with relatively small or no declines in precipitation, central and southern parts of the State
can be expected to be drier from the warming effects alone as the spring snowpack will melt sooner, and
the moisture contained in soils will evaporate during long dry summer months.48
Wildfire Risks. Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures and longer dry periods over a longer fire season
will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climate-
related changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Human activities will continue to be
the biggest factor in ignition risk. The number of large fires statewide are estimated to increase from 58
percent to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same emissions scenario, estimated
burned area will increase by 57 percent to 169 percent, depending on location.49
Health Impacts. Many of the gravest threats to public health in California stem from the increase of
extreme conditions, principally more frequent, more intense, and longer heat waves. Particular concern
centers on the increasing tendency for multiple hot days in succession, and heat waves occurring
simultaneously in several regions throughout the State. Public health could also be affected by climate
change impacts on air quality, food production, the amount and quality of water supplies, energy pricing
and availability, and the spread of infectious diseases. Higher temperatures also increase ground-level
ozone levels. Furthermore, wildfires can increase particulate air pollution in the major air basins of
California.50
48 California Climate Change Center. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from
Climate Change in California. July.
49 California Council on Science and Technology, 2012, California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/2012ghg.pdf, accessed November 21, 2018.
50 California Council on Science and Technology,2012, California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/2012ghg.pdf, accessed November 21, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
522 of 873
Page 26 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Table 6 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Sources: California Climate Change Center, 2012, Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; California Energy Commission, 2006, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, CEC-500-2006-077; California Energy
Commission, 2009, The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077; California Natural Resources Agency, 2014, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Increase Energy Demand. Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat
events combined with new residential development across the State will drive up the demand for cooling
in the increasingly hot and longer summer season and decrease demand for heating in the cooler season.
Warmer, drier summers also increase system losses at natural gas plants (reduced efficiency in the
electricity generation process from higher temperatures) and hydropower plants (lower reservoir levels).
Transmission of electricity will also be affected by climate change. Transmission lines lose 7 percent to 8
percent of transmitting capacity in high temperatures while needing to transport greater loads. This
means that more electricity needs to be produced to make up for the loss in capacity and the growing
demand.51
51 California Council on Science and Technology,2012, California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/2012ghg.pdf, accessed November 21, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
523 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 27
2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1.1 Federal Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions
threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road
vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision
that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of
themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards
proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of
Transportation.52
The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by
scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project
because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions from the onsite land uses, and per BAAQMD
guidance are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a GHG emissions inventory.
2.1.1.1 US MANDATORY REPORTING RULE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that
requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data.
Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report.
2.1.1.2 UPDATE TO CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS (2010/2012)
The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate
stricter fuel economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform
standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent
by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon [mpg] by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these new
standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance with the
national program to also be considered to be in compliance with State requirements. The federal government
issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025, which will require a fleet average of 54.5 mpg in
2025. However, the EPA is reexamining the 2017–2025 emissions standards.
2.1.1.3 EPA REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT (ONGOING)
Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA has been developing regulations for new
stationary sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to
President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA was directed to also develop regulations for existing
stationary sources. However, the EPA is reviewing the Clean Power Plan under President Trump’s Energy
Independence Executive Order.
52 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the
Environment, Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,
December, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252.
CC 03-03-20
524 of 873
Page 28 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
2.1.2 State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Order S-03-05, Executive Order B-30-15, Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375.
2.1.2.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER S-03-05
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction
targets for the State:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
2.1.2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 32, THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward
reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets
established in Executive Order S-03-05. Under AB 32, California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared the
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, the 2014 Climate Change Scoping Plan, and the 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan, which are discussed below.
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that
GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB
approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state. In order to effectively
implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and
monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year,
prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and
programs to implement the plan by 2012.
First Update to the Scoping Plan
CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the
Scoping Plan, adopted at the May 22, 2014, board hearing, highlights California’s progress toward meeting the
near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. As part of the update,
CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated AR4 GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e
1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, are slightly higher at
431 MMTCO2e.53
As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32.
However, the update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The post-
2020 element provides a high level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a
53 California Air Resources Board, 2014, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant
to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/
scopingplan.htm, accessed November 20, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
525 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 29
recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local
government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the
trajectory created by statewide goals.54 CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing
toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates.
Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020
emissions limit.55
2.1.2.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions within the state to
40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping
Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement
measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It
also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy,
Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment
decisions.
2.1.2.4 SENATE BILL 32 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 into law, making the
Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint
legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions
reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other
sources.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to
address the 2030 target for the state. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan Update. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update includes the regulations and programs to achieve the
2030 target, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a
new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990
levels by 2030.56
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced
focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables,
such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels;
integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-
lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated
54 California Air Resources Board, 2014, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant
to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm, accessed
November 20, 2018.
55 California Air Resources Board, 2014, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant
to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm, accessed
November 20, 2018.
56 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving
California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
CC 03-03-20
526 of 873
Page 30 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
land use planning, to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and
other lands. Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement efforts by the local air
districts to tighten criteria air pollutants and TACs emissions limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources.
Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing
ZEV buses and trucks.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).
Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS
and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency and utilizes NZE
technology and deployment of ZEV trucks.
Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing methane
and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent
by year 2030.
Continued implementation of SB 375.
Post -2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.
Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net
carbon sink.
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified local
governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identified local
actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends statewide
targets of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050.
CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally appropriate
goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the state’s sustainable development objectives, and
develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the
percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent,
respectively) to the state’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. For CEQA projects, CARB states
that lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per
capita, or per service population) consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals. To
the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-
site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and direct
investments in GHG reductions in the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and
economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be
effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts through purchasing and retiring carbon
credits.
CC 03-03-20
527 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 31
The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual yardstick—that is, what GHG
emissions would look like if the state did nothing beyond the existing policies that are required and already in
place to achieve the 2020 limit, as shown in Table 7, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap.
It includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” LCFS, and the SB 375
program for more vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies
or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. As shown in the table, the
known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030. If
the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in
implementation or technology deployment, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the
additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved.
Table 7 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap
Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions MMTCO2e
Reference Scenario
(Business-as-Usual) 389
With Known Commitments 320
2030 GHG Target 260
Gap to 2030 Target with Known Commitments 60
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Table 8, 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target, provides estimated GHG
emissions by sector compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for
2030.
Table 8 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target
Scoping Plan Sector
1990
MMTCO2e
2030 Proposed Plan Ranges
MMTCO2e % Change from 1990
Agricultural 26 24-25 -8% to -4%
Residential and Commercial 44 38-40 -14% to -9%
Electric Power 108 30-53 -72% to -51%
High GWP 3 8-11 267% to 367%
Industrial 98 83-90 -15% to -8%
Recycling and Waste 7 8-9 14% to 29%
Transportation (including TCU) 152 103-111 -32% to -27%
Net Sinka -7 TBD TBD
Sub Total 431 294-339 -32% to -21%
Cap-and-Trade Program NA 24-79 NA
Total 431 260 -40%
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined.
a Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.
CC 03-03-20
528 of 873
Page 32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
2.1.2.5 SENATE BILL 375 – SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted in 2005 to connect the
Scoping Plan’s GHG emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that
affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles
(excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans,
investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically,
SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 regions in California
managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) is the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. MTC’s targets are a 7 percent per
capita reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 by 2020, and 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005 levels
by 2035.57
2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets
SB 375 requires CARB to periodically update the targets, no later than every 8 years. In June 2017, CARB
released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018.
The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the draft 2017 Scoping Plan
Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive
planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in
units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005.
This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any
potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per
capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035, translate into
proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted
SCSs. As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of over 10
MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of SCS updates, CARB’s updated
targets for the MTC/ABAG region are a 10 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2020 from 2005 levels
(compared to 7 percent under the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035 from 2005
levels (compared to the 2010 target of 15 percent).58 The updated targets and methodology will take effect on
January 1, 2018, and SCS adopted in 2018 and later would be subject to these new targets.
Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region
Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS and was adopted jointly by ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017.
It lays out a development scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and
other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding
goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a
limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area, with updated planning assumptions that incorporate
key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years.
57 California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report, Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, August.
58 California Air Resources Board. 2018, February. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Targets. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb2018.pdf.
CC 03-03-20
529 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 33
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas
in existing communities. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth in the Bay Area by 2040 is
allocated in PDAs. Per the Final Plan Bay Area 2040, while the projected number of new housing units and
new jobs within PDAs would increase to 629,000 units and 707,000 jobs compared to the adopted Plan Bay
Area 2013, its overall share would be reduced to 77 percent and 55 percent.59 However, Plan Bay Area 2040
remains on track to meet a 16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent per
capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.60 The proposed project site is not within a PPA.61
2.1.2.6 OTHER APPLICABLE MEASURES
Transportation
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles)
from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30
percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the
EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG
emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles.62 In January 2012, CARB approved
the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The
program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater
numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean
Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent
fewer smog-forming emissions.63
Executive Order S-1-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in
California. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon dioxide
equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in
the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by
2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use
59 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay
Area 2040 Plan.
60 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay
Area 2040 Plan.
61 Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG). July 2015. Priority Development Area Showcase,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.
62 See also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under federal laws, above. In January 2012, CARB approved the
Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control
of smog, soot and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of
standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming
gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
63 See also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under Federal Laws, above. In January 2012, CARB approved
the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the
control of smog, soot and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package
of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming
gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
CC 03-03-20
530 of 873
Page 34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel
cycle,” using the most economically feasible methods.
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public
Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and
the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in
major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g. electric vehicle charging stations). The
executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s State vehicle fleet to increase
through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty
vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a
target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector 80 percent
below 1990 levels.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order
to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008,
which expanded the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This
standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SBX1-2). The increase in renewable sources for electricity
production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production
from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS
of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the
energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the
existing RPS, 25 percent of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33
percent by December 31, 2020, 40 percent by December 31, 2024, 45 percent by December 31, 2027, and 50
percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50 percent renewable resources
target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires
that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products
from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail
end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31,
2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.
CC 03-03-20
531 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 35
In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB32, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal
for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The
Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency, CalEPA, the Department of Food and
Agriculture, and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change
Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.
Energy Efficiency
California Building Standards Code – Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and
most recently revised in 2013 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24
requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are
updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013
Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy
efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and
other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.
Most recently, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards will
continue to improve upon the current 2013 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations
to, residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards went into effect on January 1, 2017. Under the
2016 Standards, residential buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards while non-
residential buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards.64
The 2016 standards will not get us to zero net energy (ZNE). However, they do get us very close to the
State’s goal and make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California.65
The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require
installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of 3 stories and
less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3)
residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements.66 Under
the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016
standards while single-family homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the
64 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015, June 10. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing
Presentation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents.
65 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
66 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for
New Homes, First in Nation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html.
CC 03-03-20
532 of 873
Page 36 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy
compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.67
California Green Building Standards Code – CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR). CALGreen established planning
and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy
Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.68 The
mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011,
was last updated in 2016. The CEC adopted the 2019 CALGreen on May 9, 2018. The 2019 CALGreen
standards become effective January 1, 2020.
2006 Appliance Energy Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the
California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of
Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated
appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as
“business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions
by reducing energy demand.
Solid Waste
AB 939
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) set a
requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills
by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were
modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that
each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established
the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity. AB 341 (Chapter
476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires
recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses.
AB 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, California Public Resources Code
Sections 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a
model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of
recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an
ordinance of their own. Section 5.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24,
67 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
68 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.
CC 03-03-20
533 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 37
California Code of Regulations, Part 11) also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged
for reuse.
AB 1826
AB 1826, signed on October of 2014, requires businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1,
2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after
January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste
generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic
waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-
soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.
Water Efficiency
SBX7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010
pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and
therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to
prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In
addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure
water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water
providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020
compared to 2005 baseline use.
AB 1881
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated
DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with
the department, to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape
irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce
the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the
Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the
light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter (PM) produced during incomplete combustion of fuels.
SB 1383 requires the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing that
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in
methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50
percent below 2013 levels by 2030, as specified. The bill also establishes targets for reducing organic waste in
landfill. In April 2016, CARB adopted the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which identifies the
state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.
CC 03-03-20
534 of 873
Page 38 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning,
fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon
in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.69 In-use on-
road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000
and 2020.
2.1.3 Local Regulations
2.1.3.1 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Cupertino published the public draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December, 2014 to achieve
the GHG reduction target of AB 32 for target year 2020. The CAP serves to support California’s statewide
climate change efforts through identification of actions that can be taken locally, by residents, businesses, and
the City itself, to ensure the State’s ambitious reduction goals can be achieved. The strategies outlined in the
CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the
City.70 The goals established by the City’s CAP are the following:
Goal 1 – Reduce Energy Use: Increase energy efficiency in existing homes and buildings and increase
use of renewable energy community-wide.
Goal 2 – Encourage Alternative Transportation: Support transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling as
viable transportation modes to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips within the
community.
Goal 3 – Conserve Water: Promote the efficient use and conservation of water in buildings and
landscapes.
Goal 4 – Reduce Solid Waste: Strengthen waste reduction efforts through recycling and organics
collection and reduced consumption of materials that otherwise end up in landfills.
Goal 5 – Expand Green Infrastructure: Enhance the City’s existing urban forest on public and
private lands.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 Existing Emissions
The project site is currently developed with an 8,323 square foot Good Year Auto Service Center building.
The current site uses generate criteria air pollutants emissions from energy use, transportation, and area sources
associated with the operation of the Auto Service Center.
69 California Air Resources Board. 2017, March. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf.
70 City of Cupertino, 2015. Climate Action Plan. January, 2015. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=13531
CC 03-03-20
535 of 873
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 39
2.3 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts
of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for
evaluating potential GHG emissions impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with
CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and
background information.
2.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
BAAQMD has a tiered approach for assessing GHG emissions impacts of a project. If a project is within the
jurisdiction of an agency that has a “qualified” GHG reduction strategy, the project can assess consistency of
its GHG emissions impacts with the reduction strategy.
BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria for development projects that would be
applicable for the proposed project. If a project exceeds the Guidelines’ GHG screening-level sizes, the
project would be required to conduct a full GHG analysis using the following BAAQMD significance criteria:
1,100 MT of CO2e per year; or
4.6 MT of CO2e per service population (SP) for year 2020
AB 32 requires the statewide GHG emission be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. On a per-capita basis, that
means reducing the annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman, and child in
California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.71 Hence, BAAQMD’s per capita significance threshold
is calculated based on the State’s land use sector emissions inventory prepared by CARB and the demographic
forecasts for the 2008 Scoping Plan. The land use sector GHG emissions for 1990 were estimated by
BAAQMD, as identified in Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, to be 295.53 MMTCO2eand
the 2020 California service population (SP) to be 64.3 million. Therefore, the significance threshold that
would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 is estimated at 4.6 MTCO2e/SP for year
2020.72
Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land use facilities.
Direct sources of emissions may include on-site combustion of energy, such as natural gas used for heating
and cooking, emissions from industrial processes (not applicable for most land use development projects),
and fuel combustion from mobile sources. Indirect emissions are emissions produced off-site from energy
production, water conveyance due to a project’s energy use and water consumption, and non-biogenic
emissions from waste disposal. Biogenic CO2 emissions are not included in the quantification of a project’s
GHG emissions, because biogenic CO2 is derived from living biomass (e.g. organic matter present in wood,
paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, food, animal, and yard waste) as opposed to fossil fuels. Although GHG
emissions from waste generation are included in the GHG inventory for the proposed project, the efficiency
threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population for 2020 identified above does not include the waste sector,
and it is therefore not considered in the evaluation.
71 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
72 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
CC 03-03-20
536 of 873
Page 40 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, but requires
quantification and disclosure of construction-related GHG emissions.73 For operational phases, if projects
exceed the bright line and per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially
significant in the absence of mitigation measures.
73 Ibid.
CC 03-03-20
537 of 873
CalEEMod Inputs (Construction Run)
Name:De Anza Hotel
Project Location:10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
County/Air Basin:Santa Clara County
Climate Zone:4
Land Use Setting:Urban
Operational Year:2022
Utility Company:Pacific Gas and Electric
Total Site Acreage:1.29 Total Square Feet 56,192.40 Rooms 156
Disturbed Site Acreage:1.02
Restaurant Employees 26
Hotel Employees 78
Total 104
Existing Components Existing SQFT Acreage
Goodyear Auto Service Center 8,323 0.19
Asphalt 17,700 0.41 27281.00
0.60
New Components Added SQFT Building Footprint Acreage
Hotel 115,846 28,702 0.27
Conference/Meeting 6,410 0.15
Restaurant 10,358 0.24
Enclosed Parking Structure 95,923 0.01
Surface Parking 860 0.02
Hardscape 12,860 0.30
Landscaping 1,680 0.04
1.02
CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Square Feet
Hotel + Conference/Meeting Recreational Hotel 156.00 Room 0.42 122,256
Restaurant Recreational Sit-Down Restaurant 10.36 1000 sqft 0.24 10,358
Enclosed Parking Structure Parking Enclosed Parking w/Elevator 95.92 1000 sqft 0.01 95,923
Surface Parking Parking Parking Lot 0.86 1000 sqft 0.02 860
Hardscape Parking Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 12.86 1000 sqft 0.30 0
0.98 229,397
CC 03-03-20
538 of 873
Demolition Haul
Component Amount to be Demolished (SQFT)Amount to be Demolished (Tons)
Haul Truck Capacity
(tons)* Haul Distance (miles)* Total Trip Ends Duration (days)Trips Ends/Day*
Asphalt 17,700 262 16 20 32
Buildings 8,323 382.858 16 20 47
645 79 10 7.90
Soil Haul
sqft Elevation*Cubic feet Cubic Yards
Enclosed Parking Structure 23,981 80 1,918,460 71,054
Total Volume (CY)Haul Truck Capacity (CY)**Haul Distance (miles)**Total Trip Ends Total Days Trip Ends/Day
Export 71,054 16 20 8,882 30 296
*Estimated using project site plans.
**CalEEMod Default.
CC 03-03-20
539 of 873
Architectural Coating
BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3
Interior Paint VOC content:100
Exterior Paint VOC content:150
Non-Residential Architectural Coating
Percentage of Buildings' Interior Painted:100%
Percentage of Buildings' Exterior Painted:100%
Structures Land Use Square Feet
CalEEMod Paintable Surface Area
Multiplier
Total Paintable Surface
Area2 Paintable Interior Area1
Paintable Exterior
Area1
Hotel + Conference/Meeting 122,256 2 244,512 183,384 61,128
Restaurant 10,358 2 20,716 15,537 5,179
Non-Residential Totals 265,228 198,921 66,307
Enclosed Parking 95,923 0.06 5,755 5,755
Parking Lot 860 0.06 52 52
Striping Totals 5,807 0 5,807
Notes:
1
2
Construction - Unmitigated Run
BAAQMD BMPs
Replace Ground Cover PM10:5 % Reduction
PM25:5 % Reduction
Water Exposed Area Frequency:2 per day
PM10:55 % Reduction
PM25:55 % Reduction
Unpaved Roads Vehicle Speed:15 mph
Clean Paved Road 9 % PM Reduction
*CalEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively. Architectural coatings for the parking lot is based on
CalEEMod methodology applied to a surface parking lot (i.e., striping), in which 6% of surface area is painted.
** Applied CalEEMod Methodology in calculating total
CC 03-03-20
540 of 873
CalEEMod Construction Phase Inputs*
5-Day Work Week/8 hours per day
Phase 1 Phase Type Start Date End Date CalEEMod Total Days Total Days
Demolition Demolition 8/3/2020 8/14/2020 10 11
Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/17/2020 8/21/2020 5 4
Grading Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 30 39
Grading Soil Haul Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 30 39
Building Construction Building Construction 10/5/2020 2/4/2022 350 487
Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving 2/7/2022 2/18/2022 10 11
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/21/2022 3/18/2022 20 25
Year Start Date End Date Days
2020 8/3/2020 12/31/2020 109
2021 1/1/2021 12/31/2021 261
2022 1/1/2022 3/18/2022 55
Total 425
*Based on construction schedule provided by the Applicant.
CC 03-03-20
541 of 873
CalEEMod Construction Off-Road Equipment Inputs*
Phase
Equipment Type
Unit
Amount
Hours
/Day HP LF
Vendor
Trips
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 247 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 97 0.37
Water Truck**4
Worker Trips 10
Site Preparation
Graders Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37
Water Truck**4
Worker Trips 5
Grading
Concrete/Industrial Saw Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers Excavators 1 1 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 6 97 0.37
Water Truck**4
Worker Trips 10
Grading Soil Haul
Concrete/Industrial Saw Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8 81 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers Excavators 0 1 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0 6 97 0.37
Water Truck
Worker Trips 0
Building Construction
Cranes Cranes 1 4 231 0.29
Forklifts Forklifts 2 6 89 0.2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Vendor Trips 38
Worker Trips 96
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 9 0.56
Pavers Pavers 1 7 130 0.42
Rollers Rollers 1 7 80 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 97 0.37
Vendor Trips
Worker Trips 18
Painting
Air Compressors Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Worker Trips 19
**Assume 4 vendor trips for water trucks.
*CalEEMod defaults.
CC 03-03-20
542 of 873
Demo Haul Trip Calculation
Conversion factors*
0.046 ton/SF
1.2641662 tons/cy
20 tons
15.820705 CY
0.7910352 CY/ton
Building Demoltion Haul Trips (BSF and Haul Truck (CY) given)
BSF Demo Tons/SF Tons Haul Truck (CY)Haul Truck (Ton)Round Trips Total Trip Ends
8,323 0.046 382.858 16 20.23 19 38
1 Based on BSF provided in Traffic Impact Analysis provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
*CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2011.1, Appendix A
CC 03-03-20
543 of 873
Pavement Volume to Weight Conversion
Component
Total SF of
Area1
Assumed
Thickness
(foot)2
Debris Volume
(cu. ft)
Weight of
Crushed
Asphalt
(lbs/cf)3
AC Mass
(lbs)
AC Mass
(tons)
Asphalt 17,700 0.333 5,900 89 524,444 262.22
1 Based on aerial image of existing project site.
3 https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/cdi/Tools/Calculations
2 Pavements and Surface Materials. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, Technical Paper Number 8. University
of Conneticut Cooperative Extension System, 1999.
CC 03-03-20
544 of 873
De Anza Hotel
10931 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino
Santa Clara County
4
Urban
2022
CalEEMod Inputs (Operation Run)
Name:
Project Location:
County/Air Basin:
Climate Zone:
Land Use Setting:
Operational Year:
Utility Company:Pacific Gas and Electric
Total Site Acreage:1.29 Total Square Feet 56,192.40 Rooms 156
Disturbed Site Acreage:1.02
Restaurant Employees 26
Hotel Employees 78
Total 104
Existing Components Existing SQFT Acreage
Goodyear Auto Service Center 8,323 0.19
Asphalt 17,700 0.41
0.60
New Components Added SQFT Building Footprint Acreage
Hotel 115,846 28,702 0.27
Conference/Meeting 6,410 0.15
Restaurant 10,358 0.24
Enclosed Parking Structure 95,923 0.01
Surface Parking 860 0.02
Hardscape 12,860 0.30
Landscaping 1,680 0.04
1.02
CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Square Feet
Hotel + Conference/Meeting Recreational Hotel 156.00 Room 0.42 122,256
Restaurant Recreational Sit-Down Restaurant 10.36 1000 sqft 0.24 10,358
Enclosed Parking Structure Parking Enclosed Parking w/Elevator 95.92 1000 sqft 0.01 95,923
Surface Parking Parking Parking Lot 0.86 1000 sqft 0.02 860
Hardscape Parking Non-Asphalt Hardscape 12.86 1000 sqft 0.30 12,860
0.98 242,257
Carbon Intensity of Electricity for Proposed Project
CO2**CH4**N2O**CO2e
lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh
10.84 0.000033 0.000004 10.85
*Global Warming Potentials from the Climate Change 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
**Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Mix from California Department of Energy. Utility Annual Power Content Labels for 2017. 2017 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Content Label.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/
CC 03-03-20
545 of 873
Trip Generations
Proposed Project 1,562
Average Daily Trips*1,660 ADT
Adjusted Trip Rate 10.64 trips/unit
Fleet Mix1
Passenger Vehicles:99.52%
Trucks:0.48%
Garbage/Recycling:2-3 times/week 4 HT Trips/day 0.24%
Restaurant Truck Deliveries:3 times/week 2 HT trips/day 0.12%
Vendor Deliveries:2-4 times/week 2 MT trips/day 0.12%
Source
1
Solid Waste
Rate Unit lbs/employee/year tons/year
Employees*8.10 lbs/employee/day 307,165.57 153.58
Hotel Room*2.00 lbs/hotel room/day 113,880.00 56.94
210.52
*Rate use in Village Hotel IS/MND.
**Consistent with COCU-13 IS/MND Utility Section.
Water Use
Rate Unit Sqft gal/sqft/year
Indoor Water
(gpy)
Outdoor Water
(gpy)
Hotel*0.50 gal/sqft/day 450.00 12,811,500.00 5,694,000.00 7,117,500.00
Restaurant 1.10 gal/sqft/day 10,358.00 4,158,737.00 4,158,737.00 0
16,970,237.00
Septic Tank 0%
Aerobic 100%
Facultative Lagoons 0%
*Rate Used in Marina Plaza IS/MND.
**Consistent with COCU-13 IS/MND Utility Section.
Architectural Coating
See architectural coating calculations for construction
Water Mitigation
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet 32 % Reduction in flow
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet 18 % Reduction in flow
Install Low Flow Toilet 20 % Reduction in flow
Install Low Flow Shower 20 % Reduction in flow
Use Water Efficiency Irrigation System 6.1 % Reduction in flow
Includes employees, hotel guests, and shuttle buses (e.g., vans)
Includes garbage trucks, recycling trucks, and vendor deliveries (maintenance trucks, food deliveries, other commercial deliveries).
Based on shuttle bus and commercial deliveries for similar hotel operations in the City of Cupertino.
*Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Includes 13% trip reduction based on Standard Auto Trip reduction Rates published in VTA's Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines, 2014.
CC 03-03-20
546 of 873
Energy Mitigation
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Non-Residential Exceed Title 24 30%Improvement over 20161
Traffic Mitigation
Land Use & Site Enhancement
Project Setting Suburban Center
Commute
Implement Trip Reduction Program
% employee eligible 100
Program Type Voluntary
1 California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf
CC 03-03-20
547 of 873
Changes to the CalEEMod Defaults - Fleet Mix 2022
Trips 1,660
Default LDA LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
FleetMix (Model Default)0.6105 0.03678 0.18308 0.10612 0.01441 0.00501 0.01261 0.02112 0.00214 0.00155 0.00531 0.00063 0.00074 100%
Trips 1,013 61 304 176 24 8 21 35 4 3 9 1 1 1660
Percent 84%11%6%100%
without buses/MH 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0 0 0.005312 0.000000 0 99%
Percent 84%11%5%99%
Adjusted without buses/MH 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.015785 0.005484 0.013810 0.023128 0.000000 0.000000 0.005818 0.000000 0.000000
Percent check 84%11%6%100%
Assumed Mix 99.5%0.12%0.36%100%
adjusted with Assumed 0.726590 0.043768 0.217899 0.001205 0.000980 0.000341 0.000858 0.001436 0.000000 0.000000 0.006924 0.000000 0.000000 100%
Trips 1,206 73 362 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 11 0 0 1660
Percent check 100%0%0%
Check 1,652 2 6
Fleet mix for the project is modified to reflect a higher proportion of passenger vehicles that the regional VMT. Based on similar hotel projects for the City of Cupertino
CC 03-03-20
548 of 873
CalEEMod Inputs--Operation
Name:De anza Hotel Project
Project Location:10931 North De Anza Boulevard
County/Air Basin:Santa Clara County
Climate Zone:4
Land Use Setting:Urban
Operational Year:2019, 2022
Utility Company:Pacific Gas and Electric
Total Site Acreage:1.29
Existing CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Square Feet
Goodyear Auto Service Center Retail Automobile Care Center 8.32 1000 sqft 0.19 8,323
Asphalt Parking Parking lot 17.70 1000 sqft 0.41 17,700
0.19
Carbon Intensity of Electricity for Proposed Project
CO2**CH4**N2O**CO2e
lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh lbs/Mwh
10.84 0.000033 0.000004 10.85
*Global Warming Potentials from the Climate Change 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
**Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Mix from California Department of Energy. Utility Annual Power Content Labels for 2017. 2017 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Content Label.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/
CC 03-03-20
549 of 873
Trip Generations
Existing
Average Daily Trips 98 ADT
Adjusted Trip Rate 11.77 trips/unit
*Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants
Energy Use
CalEEMod defaults used with historical data enabled
Solid Waste
Rate*Unit lbs/100 sqft/year tons/year
Goodyear Auto Service Center 0.90 lbs/100 sqft/day 27,341.06 13.67
*CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates
Water Use
Rate*Unit gal/1000 sqft/year
Goodyear Auto Service Center 80.00 gal/1000 sqft/day 243,031.60
Septic Tank 0%
Aerobic 100%
Facultative Lagoons 0%
*City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, March 20, 2002. (applies to auto repair, fast food, and retail)
CC 03-03-20
550 of 873
Architectural Coating
BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3
Interior Paint VOC content:100
Exterior Paint VOC content:150
Non-Residential Architectural Coating
Percentage of Buildings' Interior Painted:100%
Percentage of Buildings' Exterior Painted:100%
Structures Land Use Square Feet
CalEEMod Paintable
Surface Area Multiplier
Total Paintable Surface
Area2 Paintable Interior Area1 Paintable Exterior Area1
Goodyear Auto Service Center 8,323 2 16,646 12,485 4,162
Non-Residential Totals 16,646 12,485 4,162
Notes:
1
2
*CalEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively. Architectural coatings
for the parking lot is based on CalEEMod methodology applied to a surface parking lot (i.e., striping), in which 6% of surface area is painted.
** Applied CalEEMod Methodology in calculating total
CC 03-03-20
551 of 873
Changes to the CalEEMod Defaults - Fleet Mix 2019
Trips 98
Default LDA LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
FleetMix (Model Default)0.601 0.03912 0.18646 0.10977 0.01612 0.00497 0.01225 0.01984 0.00205 0.0016 0.00539 0.00062 0.00081 100%
Trips 59 4 18 11 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 98
Percent 83%11%6%100%
without buses/MH 0.601004 0.039123 0.186461 0.109772 0.016124 0.004965 0.012251 0.019838 0 0 0.005388 0.000000 0 99%
Percent 83%11%5%99%
Adjusted without buses/MH 0.601004 0.039123 0.186461 0.109772 0.017663 0.005439 0.013420 0.021731 0.000000 0.000000 0.005902 0.000000 0.000000
Percent check 83%11%6%100%
Assumed Mix 97.0%2.00%1.00%100%
adjusted with Assumed 0.700277 0.045585 0.217260 0.020000 0.003032 0.000934 0.002304 0.003730 0.000000 0.000000 0.006877 0.000000 0.000000 100%
Trips 69 4 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 98
Percent check 97%2%1%
Check 95 2 1
Fleet mix for the project is modified to reflect a higher proportion of passenger vehicles that the regional VMT. Assumes a mix of approximately 97% passenger vehicles, 2% medium duty trucks, and 1% heavy duty trucks and buses.
CC 03-03-20
552 of 873
Changes to the CalEEMod Defaults - Fleet Mix 2022
Trips 98
Default LDA LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
FleetMix (Model Default)0.6105 0.03678 0.18308 0.10612 0.01441 0.00501 0.01261 0.02112 0.00214 0.00155 0.00531 0.00063 0.00074 100%
Trips 60 4 18 10 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 98
Percent 84%11%6%100%
without buses/MH 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0 0 0.005312 0.000000 0 99%
Percent 84%11%5%99%
Adjusted without buses/MH 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.015785 0.005484 0.013810 0.023128 0.000000 0.000000 0.005818 0.000000 0.000000
Percent check 84%11%6%100%
Assumed Mix 97.0%2.00%1.00%100%
adjusted with Assumed 0.708205 0.042661 0.212386 0.020000 0.002712 0.000942 0.002373 0.003973 0.000000 0.000000 0.006749 0.000000 0.000000 100%
Trips 69 4 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 98
Percent check 97%2%1%
Check 95 2 1
Fleet mix for the project is modified to reflect a higher proportion of passenger vehicles that the regional VMT. Assumes a mix of approximately 97% passenger vehicles, 2% medium duty trucks, and 1% heavy duty trucks and buses.
CC 03-03-20
553 of 873
City of Cupertino Carbon Intensity Factor Calculator
MTCO2e MTCO2e/kWh
Source Percent Adjusted percent Emission factor
Coal 0.00%0.00%0.00052518
Large hydro 45.00%45.00%0.00000000
Natural gas 0.00%0.00%0.00040027
Nuclear 0.00%0.00%0.00000000
Oil 0.00%0.00%0.00061190
Other/unspecified 0.00%0.00%0.00042800
Biomass 6.00%6.00%0.00006741
Geothermal 1.00%1.00%0.00008747
Small hydro 2.00%2.00%0.00000000
Solar 10.00%10.00%0.00000000
Wind 36.00%36.00%0.00000000
100.00%100.00%
MTCO2e/kWh
Emission factor 0.000004919
Calculation check 0.000004919
MTCO2e/MWh
0.0049192742
lbsCO2e/MWh
10.845
The project team calculated a custom electricity emissions factor for Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)
by consulting the most recent data from the US EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID). This database includes records of GHG emissions and power generation by all power
plants in the United States. Using this information, the team determined the electricity emissions factor
for all power plants within California by fuel source, since it is not feasible to identify the specific power
plants that supply SVCE. The team consulted SVCE’s Power Content Label, which identifies the percent
of SVCE’s electricity generated by various fuel sources. Using the average emissions factor for power
plants by fuel source, in combination with SVCE’s specific fuel mix, the team was able to calculate an
emissions factor that accurately reflects SVCE’s particular sources of electricity.
CC 03-03-20
554 of 873
MTCO2 MTCO2/kWh
Source Percent Adjusted percent Emission factor
Coal 0.00%0.00%0.000525182
Large hydro 45.00%45.00%0
Natural gas 0.00%0.00%0.000400274
Nuclear 0.00%0.00%0
Oil 0.00%0.00%0.0006119
Other/unspecified 0.00%0.00%0.00042508
Biomass 6.00%6.00%6.7393E-05
Geothermal 1.00%1.00%8.74747E-05
Small hydro 2.00%2.00%0
Solar 10.00%10.00%0
Wind 36.00%36.00%0
100.00%100.00%
MTCO2/kWh
Emission factor 0.0000049183
MTCO2/MWh
0.004918328266
lbsCO2/MWh
10.843
CC 03-03-20
555 of 873
MTCH4 MTCO4/kWh
Source Percent Adjusted percent Emission factor
Coal 0.00%0.00%5.89676E-12
Large hydro 45.00%45.00%0
Natural gas 0.00%0.00%7.52558E-12
Nuclear 0.00%0.00%0
Oil 0.00%0.00%2.00932E-11
Other/unspecified 0.00%0.00%0.00000005
Biomass 6.00%6.00%2.51224E-10
Geothermal 1.00%1.00%0
Small hydro 2.00%2.00%0
Solar 10.00%10.00%0
Wind 36.00%36.00%0
100.00%100.00%
MTCH4/kWh
Emission factor 0.000000000015
MTCH4/MWh
0.0000000150734142
lbsCH4/MWh
0.000033
CC 03-03-20
556 of 873
MTN2O MTN2O/kWh
Source Percent Adjusted percent Emission factor
Coal 0.00%0.00%8.61834E-12
Large hydro 45.00%45.00%0
Natural gas 0.00%0.00%8.14808E-13
Nuclear 0.00%0.00%0
Oil 0.00%0.00%3.97229E-12
Other/unspecified 0.00%0.00%0.00
Biomass 6.00%6.00%3.29476E-11
Geothermal 1.00%1.00%0
Small hydro 2.00%2.00%0
Solar 10.00%10.00%0
Wind 36.00%36.00%0
100.00%100.00%
MTN2O/kWh
Emission factor 0.000000000
MTN2O/MWh
0.00000000197685409
lbsN2O/MWh
0.00000436
CC 03-03-20
557 of 873
Emission Factor Calculator
Select GWPs AR5
CO2 1
CH4 28
N2O 265
Fuel type MWh generated lbs CO2/kWh lbs CH4/kWh lbs N2O/kWh lbs CO2e/kWh MTCO2e/kWh
Biomass 4,754,601 0.148575 0.000001 0.000000 0.148609 0.000067
Coal 325,958 1.157816 0.000000 0.000000 1.157821 0.000525
Gas 84,035,036 0.882443 0.000000 0.000000 0.882444 0.000400
Geothermal 11,104,158 0.192847 0.000000 0.000000 0.192847 0.000087
Hydro 25,140,892 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -
Nuclear 18,907,578 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -
Oil 120,698 1.348996 0.000000 0.000000 1.348999 0.000612
Solar 17,486,623 0.009991 0.000000 0.000000 0.009991 0.000005
Wind 11,337,510 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 -
Other 5,422,246 0.000428
CC 03-03-20
558 of 873
AR2
AR4 AR2 AR4 AR5
AR5 CO2 1 1 1
CH4 21 25 28
N2O 310 298 265
kWh per MWh 1,000
kWh per GWh 1,000,000
lbs per MT 2204.6
CC 03-03-20
559 of 873
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 95.92 1000sqft 0.01 95,923.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 12.86 1000sqft 0.30 0.00 0
Parking Lot 0.86 1000sqft 0.02 860.00 0
Hotel 156.00 Room 0.42 122,256.00 0
Quality Restaurant 10.36 1000sqft 0.24 10,358.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 58
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
10.84 0CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022
Santa Clara County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 1 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
560 of 873
Project Characteristics - Carbon Intensity factors adjusted for Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power.
Land Use - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Construction Phase - Adjusted schedule based on project description.
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - No grading soil haul equipment.
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Demolition -
Grading -
Vehicle Trips - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Solid Waste - Refer to CalEEmod inputs.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD BMPs
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation -
Fleet Mix - Refer to CalEEmod inputs fleet mix.
Off-road Equipment -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 350.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 2 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
561 of 873
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 5.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 1.4360e-003
tblFleetMix LDA 0.61 0.73
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.22
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 9.8000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 5.0070e-003 3.4100e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 5.3120e-003 6.9240e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 1.2050e-003
tblFleetMix MH 7.4000e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.5800e-004
tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1440e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 6.2700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.5480e-003 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 71,054.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 95,920.00 95,923.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 12,860.00 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 226,512.00 122,256.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 10,360.00 10,358.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.20 0.01
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.20 0.42
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 3 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
562 of 873
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 10.84
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 85.41 56.94
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 9.45 153.58
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 64.00 79.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 10.64
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 10.64
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 10.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 0.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,957,216.12 5,694,000.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,144,609.26 4,158,737.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 439,690.68 7,117,500.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 200,719.74 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 4 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
563 of 873
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.1000 1.9185 0.7872 4.7600e-
003
0.1341 0.0320 0.1662 0.0383 0.0300 0.0683 0.0000 453.1895 453.1895 0.0327 0.0000 454.0077
2021 0.1559 1.5784 1.3701 3.7400e-
003
0.1320 0.0602 0.1921 0.0359 0.0554 0.0913 0.0000 341.3113 341.3113 0.0497 0.0000 342.5541
2022 0.7313 0.1805 0.1861 4.6000e-
004
0.0149 7.1100e-
003
0.0220 4.0300e-
003
6.6300e-
003
0.0107 0.0000 41.3202 41.3202 6.2900e-
003
0.0000 41.4775
Maximum 0.7313 1.9185 1.3701 4.7600e-
003
0.1341 0.0602 0.1921 0.0383 0.0554 0.0913 0.0000 453.1895 453.1895 0.0497 0.0000 454.0077
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.1000 1.9185 0.7872 4.7600e-
003
0.1130 0.0320 0.1450 0.0318 0.0300 0.0618 0.0000 453.1894 453.1894 0.0327 0.0000 454.0077
2021 0.1559 1.5784 1.3701 3.7400e-
003
0.1222 0.0602 0.1824 0.0335 0.0554 0.0888 0.0000 341.3112 341.3112 0.0497 0.0000 342.5539
2022 0.7313 0.1805 0.1861 4.6000e-
004
0.0138 7.1100e-
003
0.0209 3.7500e-
003
6.6300e-
003
0.0104 0.0000 41.3202 41.3202 6.2900e-
003
0.0000 41.4775
Maximum 0.7313 1.9185 1.3701 4.7600e-
003
0.1222 0.0602 0.1824 0.0335 0.0554 0.0888 0.0000 453.1894 453.1894 0.0497 0.0000 454.0077
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 5 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
564 of 873
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.42 0.00 8.43 11.72 0.00 5.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
7 7-14-2020 10-13-2020 2.7246 2.7246
8 10-14-2020 1-13-2021 0.4794 0.4794
9 1-14-2021 4-13-2021 0.4283 0.4283
10 4-14-2021 7-13-2021 0.4302 0.4302
11 7-14-2021 10-13-2021 0.4354 0.4354
12 10-14-2021 1-13-2022 0.4322 0.4322
13 1-14-2022 4-13-2022 0.7998 0.7998
Highest 2.7246 2.7246
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 6 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
565 of 873
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Energy 0.0408 0.3711 0.3117 2.2300e-
003
0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 412.9969 412.9969 7.7400e-
003
7.4100e-
003
415.3976
Mobile 0.3178 0.3513 3.4731 9.9300e-
003
1.1566 7.5200e-
003
1.1641 0.3074 6.9300e-
003
0.3143 0.0000 898.5926 898.5926 0.0284 0.0000 899.3025
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 42.7337 0.0000 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.4859 0.3846 3.8705 0.0120 7.5800e-
003
6.4296
Total 0.9542 0.7224 3.7874 0.0122 1.1566 0.0357 1.1923 0.3074 0.0351 0.3425 46.2196 1,311.979
0
1,358.198
6
2.5736 0.0150 1,427.005
7
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 7 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
566 of 873
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Energy 0.0320 0.2908 0.2443 1.7400e-
003
0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0000 324.5503 324.5503 6.0700e-
003
5.8000e-
003
326.4314
Mobile 0.3137 0.3403 3.3609 9.5100e-
003
1.1053 7.2600e-
003
1.1126 0.2938 6.6900e-
003
0.3005 0.0000 860.6339 860.6339 0.0274 0.0000 861.3178
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 42.7337 0.0000 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7887 0.3247 3.1135 9.6000e-
003
6.0600e-
003
5.1607
Total 0.9413 0.6311 3.6076 0.0113 1.1053 0.0294 1.1347 0.2938 0.0288 0.3226 45.5224 1,185.513
9
1,231.036
3
2.5685 0.0119 1,298.785
9
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
1.35 12.64 4.75 7.48 4.43 17.80 4.83 4.43 18.04 5.83 1.51 9.64 9.36 0.20 20.88 8.99
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 8 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
567 of 873
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/3/2020 8/14/2020 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/17/2020 8/21/2020 5 5
3 Grading Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 5 30
4 Grading Soil Haul Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 5 30
5 Building Construction Building Construction 10/5/2020 2/4/2022 5 350
6 Paving Paving 2/7/2022 2/18/2022 5 10
7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/21/2022 3/18/2022 5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 198,921; Non-Residential Outdoor: 66,307; Striped Parking Area: 5,807
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.33
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 9 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
568 of 873
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Soil Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Soil Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Soil Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 10 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
569 of 873
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.9000e-
003
0.0000 6.9000e-
003
1.0400e-
003
0.0000 1.0400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
2.3400e-
003
2.3400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
6.9000e-
003
2.3400e-
003
9.2400e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
3.2700e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 4.00 79.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading Soil Haul 0 0.00 0.00 8,882.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 96.00 38.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 11 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
570 of 873
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
0.0115 2.3500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.0127 3.0127 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.0161
Vendor 8.0000e-
005
2.2800e-
003
6.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5229 0.5229 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5235
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2500e-
003
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.3401 0.3401 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3403
Total 5.8000e-
004
0.0139 4.2100e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.2500e-
003
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.8757 3.8757 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.8799
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 2.9500e-
003
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
2.3400e-
003
2.3400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
2.9500e-
003
2.3400e-
003
5.2900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 12 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
571 of 873
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
0.0115 2.3500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
6.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.0127 3.0127 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.0161
Vendor 8.0000e-
005
2.2800e-
003
6.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5229 0.5229 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5235
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2500e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3401 0.3401 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3403
Total 5.8000e-
004
0.0139 4.2100e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.1100e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
3.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.8757 3.8757 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.8799
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.3300e-
003
0.0000 1.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
8.4000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.1571
Total 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
1.3300e-
003
8.4000e-
004
2.1700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.1571
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 13 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
572 of 873
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 4.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2614 0.2614 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2617
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0851
Total 8.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3465 0.3465 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3468
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
8.4000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.1571
Total 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
1.4100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
8.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.1571
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 14 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
573 of 873
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 4.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2614 0.2614 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2617
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0851
Total 8.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3465 0.3465 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3468
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0113 0.0000 0.0113 6.2100e-
003
0.0000 6.2100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
7.0100e-
003
7.0100e-
003
6.6900e-
003
6.6900e-
003
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.6851
Total 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
0.0113 7.0100e-
003
0.0183 6.2100e-
003
6.6900e-
003
0.0129 0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.6851
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 15 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
574 of 873
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.4000e-
004
6.8300e-
003
1.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5687 1.5687 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5705
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.7500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0202 1.0202 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0209
Total 7.4000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
5.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.5800e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.6300e-
003
4.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.5889 2.5889 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.5913
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 4.8300e-
003
2.6500e-
003
0.0000 2.6500e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
7.0100e-
003
7.0100e-
003
6.6900e-
003
6.6900e-
003
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.6851
Total 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
4.8300e-
003
7.0100e-
003
0.0118 2.6500e-
003
6.6900e-
003
9.3400e-
003
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.6851
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 16 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
575 of 873
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.4000e-
004
6.8300e-
003
1.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5687 1.5687 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5705
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.7500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1000e-
003
2.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0202 1.0202 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0209
Total 7.4000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
5.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4700e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
4.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.5889 2.5889 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.5913
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Grading Soil Haul - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 4.0200e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0200e-
003
0.0000 4.0200e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 17 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
576 of 873
3.5 Grading Soil Haul - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0753 4.1900e-
003
0.0795 0.0207 4.0100e-
003
0.0247 0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.1060
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0753 4.1900e-
003
0.0795 0.0207 4.0100e-
003
0.0247 0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.1060
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.7200e-
003
0.0000 1.7200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7200e-
003
0.0000 1.7200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 18 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
577 of 873
3.5 Grading Soil Haul - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0702 4.1900e-
003
0.0744 0.0195 4.0100e-
003
0.0235 0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.1060
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0702 4.1900e-
003
0.0744 0.0195 4.0100e-
003
0.0235 0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.1060
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 32.0194 32.0194 0.0104 0.0000 32.2783
Total 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 32.0194 32.0194 0.0104 0.0000 32.2783
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 19 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
578 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 4.8200e-
003
0.1385 0.0369 3.3000e-
004
8.0000e-
003
6.9000e-
004
8.6900e-
003
2.3100e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.9700e-
003
0.0000 31.7914 31.7914 1.4600e-
003
0.0000 31.8279
Worker 0.0102 7.3300e-
003
0.0769 2.3000e-
004
0.0244 1.6000e-
004
0.0245 6.4800e-
003
1.4000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
0.0000 20.8942 20.8942 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 20.9070
Total 0.0150 0.1458 0.1138 5.6000e-
004
0.0324 8.5000e-
004
0.0332 8.7900e-
003
8.0000e-
004
9.5900e-
003
0.0000 52.6856 52.6856 1.9700e-
003
0.0000 52.7349
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 32.0193 32.0193 0.0104 0.0000 32.2782
Total 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 32.0193 32.0193 0.0104 0.0000 32.2782
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 20 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
579 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 4.8200e-
003
0.1385 0.0369 3.3000e-
004
7.4900e-
003
6.9000e-
004
8.1800e-
003
2.1900e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.8400e-
003
0.0000 31.7914 31.7914 1.4600e-
003
0.0000 31.8279
Worker 0.0102 7.3300e-
003
0.0769 2.3000e-
004
0.0225 1.6000e-
004
0.0226 6.0100e-
003
1.4000e-
004
6.1600e-
003
0.0000 20.8942 20.8942 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 20.9070
Total 0.0150 0.1458 0.1138 5.6000e-
004
0.0300 8.5000e-
004
0.0308 8.2000e-
003
8.0000e-
004
9.0000e-
003
0.0000 52.6856 52.6856 1.9700e-
003
0.0000 52.7349
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
0.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 130.6071 130.6071 0.0422 0.0000 131.6631
Total 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
0.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 130.6071 130.6071 0.0422 0.0000 131.6631
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 21 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
580 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0162 0.5096 0.1357 1.3400e-
003
0.0326 1.1300e-
003
0.0338 9.4300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
0.0105 0.0000 128.4527 128.4527 5.6000e-
003
0.0000 128.5926
Worker 0.0386 0.0267 0.2866 9.1000e-
004
0.0994 6.3000e-
004
0.1000 0.0264 5.8000e-
004
0.0270 0.0000 82.2516 82.2516 1.8700e-
003
0.0000 82.2983
Total 0.0548 0.5363 0.4222 2.2500e-
003
0.1320 1.7600e-
003
0.1337 0.0359 1.6600e-
003
0.0375 0.0000 210.7042 210.7042 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 210.8909
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
0.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 130.6069 130.6069 0.0422 0.0000 131.6630
Total 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
0.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537 0.0000 130.6069 130.6069 0.0422 0.0000 131.6630
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 22 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
581 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0162 0.5096 0.1357 1.3400e-
003
0.0306 1.1300e-
003
0.0317 8.9200e-
003
1.0800e-
003
0.0100 0.0000 128.4527 128.4527 5.6000e-
003
0.0000 128.5926
Worker 0.0386 0.0267 0.2866 9.1000e-
004
0.0916 6.3000e-
004
0.0923 0.0245 5.8000e-
004
0.0251 0.0000 82.2516 82.2516 1.8700e-
003
0.0000 82.2983
Total 0.0548 0.5363 0.4222 2.2500e-
003
0.1222 1.7600e-
003
0.1240 0.0335 1.6600e-
003
0.0351 0.0000 210.7042 210.7042 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 210.8909
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
4.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.6197
Total 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
4.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.6197
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 23 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
582 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.4500e-
003
0.0461 0.0122 1.3000e-
004
3.1300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
0.0000 12.1862 12.1862 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.1990
Worker 3.4500e-
003
2.3000e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
9.5200e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.5800e-
003
2.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.5900e-
003
0.0000 7.5923 7.5923 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5963
Total 4.9000e-
003
0.0484 0.0375 2.1000e-
004
0.0127 1.5000e-
004
0.0128 3.4300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.5800e-
003
0.0000 19.7785 19.7785 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.7953
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
4.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.6197
Total 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
4.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.6197
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 24 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
583 of 873
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.4500e-
003
0.0461 0.0122 1.3000e-
004
2.9300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.0200e-
003
8.5000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
9.4000e-
004
0.0000 12.1862 12.1862 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.1990
Worker 3.4500e-
003
2.3000e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
8.7800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
8.8400e-
003
2.3500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
0.0000 7.5923 7.5923 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5963
Total 4.9000e-
003
0.0484 0.0375 2.1000e-
004
0.0117 1.5000e-
004
0.0119 3.2000e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.3400e-
003
0.0000 19.7785 19.7785 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.7953
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
1.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.7326
Paving 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.2600e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
1.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.7326
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 25 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
584 of 873
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5697
Total 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5697
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
1.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.7326
Paving 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.2600e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
1.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.7326
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 26 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
585 of 873
3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.6000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5697
Total 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.6000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5697
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.8 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7117 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0500e-
003
0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.5574
Total 0.7137 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.5574
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 27 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
586 of 873
3.8 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5200e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2028
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5200e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2028
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7117 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0500e-
003
0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.5574
Total 0.7137 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.5574
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 28 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
587 of 873
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Implement Trip Reduction Program
3.8 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2028
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2028
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 29 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
588 of 873
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3137 0.3403 3.3609 9.5100e-
003
1.1053 7.2600e-
003
1.1126 0.2938 6.6900e-
003
0.3005 0.0000 860.6339 860.6339 0.0274 0.0000 861.3178
Unmitigated 0.3178 0.3513 3.4731 9.9300e-
003
1.1566 7.5200e-
003
1.1641 0.3074 6.9300e-
003
0.3143 0.0000 898.5926 898.5926 0.0284 0.0000 899.3025
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 1,659.84 1,659.84 1659.84 3,153,581 3,013,858
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,659.84 1,659.84 1,659.84 3,153,581 3,013,858
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 30 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
589 of 873
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.0105 8.0105 0.0000 0.0000 8.0105
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0123 9.0123 0.0000 0.0000 9.0123
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0320 0.2908 0.2443 1.7400e-
003
0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0000 316.5398 316.5398 6.0700e-
003
5.8000e-
003
318.4209
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0408 0.3711 0.3117 2.2300e-
003
0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 403.9845 403.9845 7.7400e-
003
7.4100e-
003
406.3852
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0.002144 0.001548 0.005312 0.000627 0.000740
Hotel 0.726590 0.043768 0.217899 0.001205 0.000980 0.000341 0.000858 0.001436 0.000000 0.000000 0.006924 0.000000 0.000000
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0.002144 0.001548 0.005312 0.000627 0.000740
Parking Lot 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0.002144 0.001548 0.005312 0.000627 0.000740
Quality Restaurant 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413 0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0.002144 0.001548 0.005312 0.000627 0.000740
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 31 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
590 of 873
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 5.41716e
+006
0.0292 0.2656 0.2231 1.5900e-
003
0.0202 0.0202 0.0202 0.0202 0.0000 289.0805 289.0805 5.5400e-
003
5.3000e-
003
290.7983
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
2.15322e
+006
0.0116 0.1056 0.0887 6.3000e-
004
8.0200e-
003
8.0200e-
003
8.0200e-
003
8.0200e-
003
0.0000 114.9041 114.9041 2.2000e-
003
2.1100e-
003
115.5869
Total 0.0408 0.3711 0.3117 2.2200e-
003
0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 403.9845 403.9845 7.7400e-
003
7.4100e-
003
406.3852
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 32 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
591 of 873
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 3.96623e
+006
0.0214 0.1944 0.1633 1.1700e-
003
0.0148 0.0148 0.0148 0.0148 0.0000 211.6531 211.6531 4.0600e-
003
3.8800e-
003
212.9108
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
1.9655e
+006
0.0106 0.0964 0.0809 5.8000e-
004
7.3200e-
003
7.3200e-
003
7.3200e-
003
7.3200e-
003
0.0000 104.8867 104.8867 2.0100e-
003
1.9200e-
003
105.5100
Total 0.0320 0.2908 0.2443 1.7500e-
003
0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0221 0.0000 316.5398 316.5398 6.0700e-
003
5.8000e-
003
318.4209
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 33 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
592 of 873
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
562109 2.7639 0.0000 0.0000 2.7639
Hotel 931591 4.5806 0.0000 0.0000 4.5806
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 301 1.4800e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.4800e-
003
Quality
Restaurant
338914 1.6664 0.0000 0.0000 1.6664
Total 9.0123 0.0000 0.0000 9.0123
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 34 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
593 of 873
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
449303 2.2092 0.0000 0.0000 2.2092
Hotel 856403 4.2109 0.0000 0.0000 4.2109
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 301 1.4800e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.4800e-
003
Quality
Restaurant
323159 1.5890 0.0000 0.0000 1.5890
Total 8.0105 0.0000 0.0000 8.0105
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 35 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
594 of 873
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Unmitigated 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0712 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.5242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.4000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Total 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 36 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
595 of 873
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0712 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.5242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.4000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Total 0.5956 2.0000e-
005
2.5400e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.9300e-
003
4.9300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2600e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 37 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
596 of 873
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 3.1135 9.6000e-
003
6.0600e-
003
5.1607
Unmitigated 3.8705 0.0120 7.5800e-
003
6.4296
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 5.694 /
7.1175
2.2885 6.9300e-
003
4.3800e-
003
3.7674
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
4.15874 /
0
1.5820 5.0600e-
003
3.2000e-
003
2.6621
Total 3.8705 0.0120 7.5800e-
003
6.4295
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 38 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
597 of 873
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 4.5552 /
6.68333
1.8479 5.5500e-
003
3.5000e-
003
3.0310
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
3.32699 /
0
1.2656 4.0500e-
003
2.5600e-
003
2.1297
Total 3.1135 9.6000e-
003
6.0600e-
003
5.1607
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 39 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
598 of 873
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Unmitigated 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 56.94 11.5583 0.6831 0.0000 28.6352
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
153.58 31.1754 1.8424 0.0000 77.2356
Total 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 40 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
599 of 873
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 56.94 11.5583 0.6831 0.0000 28.6352
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant
153.58 31.1754 1.8424 0.0000 77.2356
Total 42.7337 2.5255 0.0000 105.8708
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 41 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
600 of 873
11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/16/2019 3:40 PMPage 42 of 42
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
601 of 873
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Carbon Intensity factors adjusted for Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power.
Land Use - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Construction Phase - Adjusted schedule based on project description.
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
10.84 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Quality Restaurant 10.36 1000sqft 0.24 10,358.00 0
Hotel 156.00 Room 0.42 122,256.00 0
Parking Lot 0.86 1000sqft 0.02 860.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 12.86 1000sqft 0.30 0.00 0
Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 95.92 1000sqft 0.01 95,923.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 1/16/2019 4:51 PM
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - HRA Mitigation - Santa Clara County, Annual
De Anza Hotel Construction & Operation 2022 - HRA Mitigation
Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
602 of 873
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
Water Mitigation -
Fleet Mix - Refer to CalEEmod inputs fleet mix.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Solid Waste - Refer to CalEEmod inputs.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD BMPs
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation -
Off-road Equipment - No grading soil haul equipment.
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Demolition -
Grading -
Vehicle Trips - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
CC 03-03-20
603 of 873
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.20 0.01
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 226,512.00 122,256.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 10,360.00 10,358.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 95,920.00 95,923.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 12,860.00 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.5480e-003 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 71,054.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1440e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 6.2700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 7.4000e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.5800e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 5.3120e-003 6.9240e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 1.2050e-003
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 9.8000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 5.0070e-003 3.4100e-004
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.22
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 1.4360e-003
tblFleetMix LDA 0.61 0.73
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 350.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
CC 03-03-20
604 of 873
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 200,719.74 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,144,609.26 4,158,737.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 439,690.68 0.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce
nt
2.21 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,957,216.12 82,125.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce
nt
2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 0.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 10.64
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 10.64
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 58.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 10.64
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 38.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 4.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 64.00 79.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 85.41 56.94
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 9.45 153.58
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 10.84
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.20 0.42
CC 03-03-20
605 of 873
0.0000 453.1894 453.1894 0.0497 0.0000 454.00770.1222 0.0105 0.1327 0.0335 9.7200e-
003
0.0432Maximum0.7313 1.9185 1.3701 4.7600e-
003
0.0000 41.3202 41.3202 6.2900e-
003
0.0000 41.47750.0138 1.3900e-
003
0.0151 3.7500e-
003
1.3100e-
003
5.0600e-
003
2022 0.7313 0.1805 0.1861 4.6000e-
004
0.0000 341.3112 341.3112 0.0497 0.0000 342.55390.1222 0.0105 0.1327 0.0335 9.7200e-
003
0.043220210.1559 1.5784 1.3701 3.7400e-
003
0.0000 453.1894 453.1894 0.0327 0.0000 454.00770.1130 9.1600e-
003
0.1221 0.0318 8.6600e-
003
0.040520200.1000 1.9185 0.7872 4.7600e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 453.1895 453.1895 0.0497 0.0000 454.00770.1341 0.0602 0.1921 0.0383 0.0554 0.0913Maximum0.7313 1.9185 1.3701 4.7600e-
003
0.0000 41.3202 41.3202 6.2900e-
003
0.0000 41.47750.0149 7.1100e-
003
0.0220 4.0300e-
003
6.6300e-
003
0.010720220.7313 0.1805 0.1861 4.6000e-
004
0.0000 341.3113 341.3113 0.0497 0.0000 342.55410.1320 0.0602 0.1921 0.0359 0.0554 0.091320210.1559 1.5784 1.3701 3.7400e-
003
0.0000 453.1895 453.1895 0.0327 0.0000 454.00770.1341 0.0320 0.1662 0.0383 0.0300 0.068320200.1000 1.9185 0.7872 4.7600e-
003
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
CC 03-03-20
606 of 873
20
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.33
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 198,921; Non-Residential Outdoor: 66,307; Striped Parking Area:
7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/21/2022 3/18/2022 5
350
6 Paving Paving 2/7/2022 2/18/2022 5 10
5 Building Construction Building Construction 10/5/2020 2/4/2022 5
30
4 Grading Soil Haul Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 5 30
3 Grading Grading 8/24/2020 10/2/2020 5
10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/17/2020 8/21/2020 5 5
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/3/2020 8/14/2020 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
Highest 2.7246 2.7246
12 10-14-2021 1-13-2022 0.4322 0.4322
13 1-14-2022 4-13-2022 0.7998 0.7998
10 4-14-2021 7-13-2021 0.4302 0.4302
11 7-14-2021 10-13-2021 0.4354 0.4354
8 10-14-2020 1-13-2021 0.4794 0.4794
9 1-14-2021 4-13-2021 0.4283 0.4283
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
7 7-14-2020 10-13-2020 2.7246 2.7246
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0011.42 78.78 29.01 11.72 78.59 47.86
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
CC 03-03-20
607 of 873
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 5 96.00 38.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading Soil Haul 0 0.00 0.00 8,882.00
Grading 4 10.00 4.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 4.00 0.00
Demolition 4 10.00 4.00 79.00 10.80
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Grading Soil Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Soil Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Soil Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
CC 03-03-20
608 of 873
0.0000 3.0127 3.0127 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.01616.7000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
7.1000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
0.0115 2.3500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.22846.9000e-
003
2.3400e-
003
9.2400e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
3.2700e-
003
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.22842.3400e-
003
2.3400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.9000e-
003
0.0000 6.9000e-
003
1.0400e-
003
0.0000 1.0400e-
003
Fugitive Dust
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Use DPF for Construction Equipment
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2020
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving718.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
609 of 873
0.0000 3.8757 3.8757 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.87991.1100e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.1600e-
003
3.1000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.6000e-
004
Total 5.8000e-
004
0.0139 4.2100e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3401 0.3401 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.34033.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.5229 0.5229 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.52351.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 8.0000e-
005
2.2800e-
003
6.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0127 3.0127 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 3.01616.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
Hauling 3.3000e-
004
0.0115 2.3500e-
003
3.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.22842.9500e-
003
3.5000e-
004
3.3000e-
003
4.5000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.22843.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.9500e-
003
0.0000 2.9500e-
003
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.5000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.8757 3.8757 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.87991.2000e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.2500e-
003
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
Total 5.8000e-
004
0.0139 4.2100e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3401 0.3401 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.34034.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2500e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.5229 0.5229 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.52351.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Vendor 8.0000e-
005
2.2800e-
003
6.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
CC 03-03-20
610 of 873
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3465 0.3465 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.34681.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Total 8.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 0.0000 0.08511.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2614 0.2614 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.26177.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Vendor 4.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
3.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.15711.3300e-
003
8.4000e-
004
2.1700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Total 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.15718.4000e-
004
8.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
Off-Road 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.3300e-
003
0.0000 1.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
611 of 873
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.68517.0100e-
003
7.0100e-
003
6.6900e-
003
6.6900e-
003
Off-Road 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0113 0.0000 0.0113 6.2100e-
003
0.0000 6.2100e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.4 Grading - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.3465 0.3465 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.34681.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
Total 8.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0850 0.0850 0.0000 0.0000 0.08519.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.2614 0.2614 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.26176.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Vendor 4.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
3.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.15715.7000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
Total 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1398 2.1398 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.15711.3000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
Off-Road 1.7100e-
003
0.0211 0.0102 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Category tons/yr MT/yr
CC 03-03-20
612 of 873
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.68514.8300e-
003
1.0500e-
003
5.8800e-
003
2.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
003
3.6500e-
003
Total 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.68511.0500e-
003
1.0500e-
003
1.0000e-
003
1.0000e-
003
Off-Road 0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.8300e-
003
0.0000 4.8300e-
003
2.6500e-
003
0.0000 2.6500e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.5889 2.5889 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.59131.5800e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.6300e-
003
4.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
Total 7.4000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
5.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0202 1.0202 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.02091.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.7500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5687 1.5687 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.57053.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
Vendor 2.4000e-
004
6.8300e-
003
1.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 15.6113 15.6113 2.9500e-
003
0.0000 15.68510.0113 7.0100e-
003
0.0183 6.2100e-
003
6.6900e-
003
0.0129Total0.0130 0.1181 0.1143 1.8000e-
004
CC 03-03-20
613 of 873
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.0200e-
003
0.0000 4.0200e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 6.1000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00004.0200e-
003
0.0000 4.0200e-
003
6.1000e-
004
0.0000 6.1000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.5 Grading Soil Haul - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.5889 2.5889 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.59131.4700e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
4.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
Total 7.4000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
5.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0202 1.0202 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.02091.1000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1000e-
003
2.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.7500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5687 1.5687 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.57053.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
004
Vendor 2.4000e-
004
6.8300e-
003
1.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
614 of 873
0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.10600.0702 4.1900e-
003
0.0744 0.0195 4.0100e-
003
0.0235Total0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.10600.0702 4.1900e-
003
0.0744 0.0195 4.0100e-
003
0.0235Hauling0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.7200e-
003
0.0000 1.7200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.7200e-
003
0.0000 1.7200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.10600.0753 4.1900e-
003
0.0795 0.0207 4.0100e-
003
0.0247Total0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 338.7186 338.7186 0.0155 0.0000 339.10600.0753 4.1900e-
003
0.0795 0.0207 4.0100e-
003
0.0247Hauling0.0369 1.2887 0.2639 3.5000e-
003
CC 03-03-20
615 of 873
Mitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 52.6856 52.6856 1.9700e-
003
0.0000 52.73490.0324 8.5000e-
004
0.0332 8.7900e-
003
8.0000e-
004
9.5900e-
003
Total 0.0150 0.1458 0.1138 5.6000e-
004
0.0000 20.8942 20.8942 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 20.90700.0244 1.6000e-
004
0.0245 6.4800e-
003
1.4000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
Worker 0.0102 7.3300e-
003
0.0769 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 31.7914 31.7914 1.4600e-
003
0.0000 31.82798.0000e-
003
6.9000e-
004
8.6900e-
003
2.3100e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.9700e-
003
Vendor 4.8200e-
003
0.1385 0.0369 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 32.0194 32.0194 0.0104 0.0000 32.27830.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154Total0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 32.0194 32.0194 0.0104 0.0000 32.27830.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2020
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
616 of 873
0.0000 130.6071 130.6071 0.0422 0.0000 131.66310.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537Off-Road 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 52.6856 52.6856 1.9700e-
003
0.0000 52.73490.0300 8.5000e-
004
0.0308 8.2000e-
003
8.0000e-
004
9.0000e-
003
Total 0.0150 0.1458 0.1138 5.6000e-
004
0.0000 20.8942 20.8942 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 20.90700.0225 1.6000e-
004
0.0226 6.0100e-
003
1.4000e-
004
6.1600e-
003
Worker 0.0102 7.3300e-
003
0.0769 2.3000e-
004
0.0000 31.7914 31.7914 1.4600e-
003
0.0000 31.82797.4900e-
003
6.9000e-
004
8.1800e-
003
2.1900e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.8400e-
003
Vendor 4.8200e-
003
0.1385 0.0369 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 32.0193 32.0193 0.0104 0.0000 32.27822.5100e-
003
2.5100e-
003
2.3100e-
003
2.3100e-
003
Total 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 32.0193 32.0193 0.0104 0.0000 32.27822.5100e-
003
2.5100e-
003
2.3100e-
003
2.3100e-
003
Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.6000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
617 of 873
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 130.6069 130.6069 0.0422 0.0000 131.66308.7600e-
003
8.7600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
Total 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
0.0000 130.6069 130.6069 0.0422 0.0000 131.66308.7600e-
003
8.7600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
Off-Road 0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 210.7042 210.7042 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 210.89090.1320 1.7600e-
003
0.1337 0.0359 1.6600e-
003
0.0375Total0.0548 0.5363 0.4222 2.2500e-
003
0.0000 82.2516 82.2516 1.8700e-
003
0.0000 82.29830.0994 6.3000e-
004
0.1000 0.0264 5.8000e-
004
0.0270Worker0.0386 0.0267 0.2866 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 128.4527 128.4527 5.6000e-
003
0.0000 128.59260.0326 1.1300e-
003
0.0338 9.4300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
0.0105Vendor0.0162 0.5096 0.1357 1.3400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 130.6071 130.6071 0.0422 0.0000 131.66310.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537Total0.1011 1.0420 0.9479 1.4900e-
003
CC 03-03-20
618 of 873
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.61974.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
Total 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.61974.6500e-
003
4.6500e-
003
4.2800e-
003
4.2800e-
003
Off-Road 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 210.7042 210.7042 7.4700e-
003
0.0000 210.89090.1222 1.7600e-
003
0.1240 0.0335 1.6600e-
003
0.0351Total0.0548 0.5363 0.4222 2.2500e-
003
0.0000 82.2516 82.2516 1.8700e-
003
0.0000 82.29830.0916 6.3000e-
004
0.0923 0.0245 5.8000e-
004
0.0251Worker0.0386 0.0267 0.2866 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 128.4527 128.4527 5.6000e-
003
0.0000 128.59260.0306 1.1300e-
003
0.0317 8.9200e-
003
1.0800e-
003
0.0100Vendor0.0162 0.5096 0.1357 1.3400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
619 of 873
0.0000 19.7785 19.7785 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.79530.0117 1.5000e-
004
0.0119 3.2000e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.3400e-
003
Total 4.9000e-
003
0.0484 0.0375 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.5923 7.5923 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.59638.7800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
8.8400e-
003
2.3500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
Worker 3.4500e-
003
2.3000e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 12.1862 12.1862 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.19902.9300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.0200e-
003
8.5000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
9.4000e-
004
Vendor 1.4500e-
003
0.0461 0.0122 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.61977.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
6.4000e-
004
6.4000e-
004
Total 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 12.5185 12.5185 4.0500e-
003
0.0000 12.61977.0000e-
004
7.0000e-
004
6.4000e-
004
6.4000e-
004
Off-Road 8.5800e-
003
0.0878 0.0894 1.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 19.7785 19.7785 6.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.79530.0127 1.5000e-
004
0.0128 3.4300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.5800e-
003
Total 4.9000e-
003
0.0484 0.0375 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.5923 7.5923 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.59639.5200e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.5800e-
003
2.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.5900e-
003
Worker 3.4500e-
003
2.3000e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 12.1862 12.1862 5.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.19903.1300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
Vendor 1.4500e-
003
0.0461 0.0122 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CC 03-03-20
620 of 873
Mitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.56977.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
Total 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.56977.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
Worker 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.73261.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
Total 3.2600e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.73261.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.3800e-
003
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.7 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
621 of 873
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.7117
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.8 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.56976.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.6000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
Total 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5694 0.5694 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.56976.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.6000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
Worker 2.6000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.8900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.73264.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
Total 3.2600e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6984 4.6984 1.3700e-
003
0.0000 4.73264.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0296 0.0352 6.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
622 of 873
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.55741.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
Total 0.7137 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.55741.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
Off-Road 2.0500e-
003
0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.7117
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20281.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5200e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20281.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5200e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.55748.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
Total 0.7137 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.55748.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
Off-Road 2.0500e-
003
0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e-
005
CC 03-03-20
623 of 873
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20281.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2021 1.2021 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20281.3900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
3.9900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
624 of 873
Solid Waste - Refer to CalEEmod inputs.
Fleet Mix - Refer to CalEEMod inputs Fleet Mix.
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Content Label
Land Use -
Vehicle Trips - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
10.84 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Automobile Care Center 8.32 1000sqft 0.19 8,323.00 0
Floor Surface Area Population
Parking Lot 17.70 1000sqft 0.41 17,700.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 1/16/2019 3:22 PM
De Anza Hotel Existing Operation 2019 - Santa Clara County, Annual
De Anza Hotel Existing Operation 2019
Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
625 of 873
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 479,752.95 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce
nt
2.21 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 782,754.81 243,031.60
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 11.77
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 11.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 11.77
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 31.78 13.67
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 10.84
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.6020e-003 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 8,320.00 8,323.00
tblFleetMix OBUS 2.0450e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 6.1600e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 8.1200e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 2.3040e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 5.3880e-003 6.8770e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.02
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 3.0320e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 4.9650e-003 9.3400e-004
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.22
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 3.7300e-003
tblFleetMix LDA 0.60 0.70
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
CC 03-03-20
626 of 873
2.8609 47.1166 49.9774 0.1659 4.3000e-
004
54.25250.0358 1.2300e-
003
0.0371 9.5300e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0107Total0.0609 0.0377 0.1886 4.4000e-
004
0.0860 6.4700e-
003
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.15560.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
2.7749 0.0000 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.87470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 33.6558 33.6558 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 33.69080.0358 3.2000e-
004
0.0361 9.5300e-
003
3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
Mobile 0.0213 0.0257 0.1784 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 13.4538 13.4538 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.53109.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Energy 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
2.0 Emissions Summary
CC 03-03-20
627 of 873
0.0000 33.6558 33.6558 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 33.69080.0358 3.2000e-
004
0.0361 9.5300e-
003
3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
Unmitigated 0.0213 0.0257 0.1784 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 33.6558 33.6558 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 33.69080.0358 3.2000e-
004
0.0361 9.5300e-
003
3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
Mitigated 0.0213 0.0257 0.1784 3.7000e-
004
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
2.8609 47.1166 49.9774 0.1659 4.3000e-
004
54.25250.0358 1.2300e-
003
0.0371 9.5300e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0107Total0.0609 0.0377 0.1886 4.4000e-
004
0.0860 6.4700e-
003
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.15560.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
2.7749 0.0000 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.87470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 33.6558 33.6558 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 33.69080.0358 3.2000e-
004
0.0361 9.5300e-
003
3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
Mobile 0.0213 0.0257 0.1784 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 13.4538 13.4538 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.53109.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Energy 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
628 of 873
0.000616 0.000812
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: Y
0.004965 0.012251 0.019838 0.002045 0.001602 0.005388Parking Lot 0.601004 0.039123 0.186461 0.109772 0.016124
0.003730 0.000000 0.000000 0.006877 0.000000 0.000000
SBUS MH
Automobile Care Center 0.700277 0.045585 0.217260 0.020000 0.003032 0.000934 0.002304
LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1
0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
48.00 19.00 21 51 28
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Automobile Care Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
Total 97.93 97.93 97.93 97,553 97,553
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
Automobile Care Center 97.93 97.93 97.93 97,553 97,553
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
CC 03-03-20
629 of 873
13.06859.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0685
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Automobile Care
Center
243448 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.06859.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.06859.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4625 0.4625 0.0000 0.0000 0.46250.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.4625 0.4625 0.0000 0.0000 0.46250.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO
CC 03-03-20
630 of 873
0.4625Total0.4625 0.0000 0.0000
0.3859
Parking Lot 15576 0.0766 0.0000 0.0000 0.0766
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
78485.9 0.3859 0.0000 0.0000
13.0685
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0685
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9913 12.9913 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
243448 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2
CC 03-03-20
631 of 873
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Unmitigated0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Mitigated0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.4625
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Total 0.4625 0.0000 0.0000
0.3859
Parking Lot 15576 0.0766 0.0000 0.0000 0.0766
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
78485.9 0.3859 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
632 of 873
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.0337
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
4.7100e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.0337
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
4.7100e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
633 of 873
0.1556Total0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0.243032 /
0
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
634 of 873
Unmitigated 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.8747
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.8747
0.1556
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0.243032 /
0
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
635 of 873
Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
6.8747
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year
Total 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
6.8747
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
13.67 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
6.8747
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
6.8747
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
13.67 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
636 of 873
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power
CC 03-03-20
637 of 873
Solid Waste - Refer to CalEEmod inputs.
Fleet Mix - Refer to CalEEMod inputs Fleet Mix.
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power Content Label
Land Use -
Vehicle Trips - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater - Refer to CalEEMod inputs.
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
10.84 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Automobile Care Center 8.32 1000sqft 0.19 8,320.00 0
Floor Surface Area Population
Parking Lot 17.70 1000sqft 0.41 17,700.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 1/16/2019 3:27 PM
De Anza Hotel Existing Operation 2022 - Santa Clara County, Annual
De Anza Hotel Existing Operation 2022
Santa Clara County, Annual
CC 03-03-20
638 of 873
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 782,754.81 243,031.60
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 479,752.95 0.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPerce
nt
2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 11.88 11.70
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 23.72 11.70
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 31.78 13.67
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 23.72 11.70
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 10.84
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.5480e-003 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0
tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1440e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 6.2700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 7.4000e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 2.3726e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 5.3120e-003 6.7487e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.02
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.01 2.7119e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 5.0070e-003 9.4209e-004
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.21
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 3.9734e-003
tblFleetMix LDA 0.61 0.71
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
CC 03-03-20
639 of 873
2.8609 43.6082 46.4691 0.1656 4.3000e-
004
50.73640.0356 1.1900e-
003
0.0368 9.4700e-
003
1.1700e-
003
0.0106Total0.0561 0.0319 0.1462 4.0000e-
004
0.0860 6.4700e-
003
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.15560.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
2.7749 0.0000 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.87470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 30.1523 30.1523 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 30.17960.0356 2.8000e-
004
0.0359 9.4700e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
Mobile 0.0164 0.0200 0.1360 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 13.4490 13.4490 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.52629.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Energy 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
2.0 Emissions Summary
CC 03-03-20
640 of 873
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROGNOxCOSO2Fugitive
PM10
2.8609 43.6082 46.4691 0.1656 4.3000e-
004
50.73640.0356 1.1900e-
003
0.0368 9.4700e-
003
1.1700e-
003
0.0106Total0.0561 0.0319 0.1462 4.0000e-
004
0.0860 6.4700e-
003
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.15560.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water
2.7749 0.0000 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.87470.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste
0.0000 30.1523 30.1523 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 30.17960.0356 2.8000e-
004
0.0359 9.4700e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
Mobile 0.0164 0.0200 0.1360 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 13.4490 13.4490 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.52629.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Energy 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
641 of 873
0.000627 0.000740
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: Y
0.005007 0.012610 0.021118 0.002144 0.001548 0.005312Parking Lot 0.610498 0.036775 0.183084 0.106123 0.014413
0.003973 0.000000 0.000000 0.006749 0.000000 0.000000
SBUS MH
Automobile Care Center 0.708205 0.042661 0.212386 0.020000 0.002712 0.000942 0.002373
LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1
0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
48.00 19.00 21 51 28
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Automobile Care Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
Total 97.34 97.34 97.34 96,973 96,973
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
Automobile Care Center 97.34 97.34 97.34 96,973 96,973
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.0000 30.1523 30.1523 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 30.17960.0356 2.8000e-
004
0.0359 9.4700e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
Unmitigated 0.0164 0.0200 0.1360 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 30.1523 30.1523 1.0900e-
003
0.0000 30.17960.0356 2.8000e-
004
0.0359 9.4700e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7300e-
003
Mitigated 0.0164 0.0200 0.1360 3.3000e-
004
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
CC 03-03-20
642 of 873
13.06389.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0638
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Automobile Care
Center
243360 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.06389.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
13.06389.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4624 0.4624 0.0000 0.0000 0.46240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.4624 0.4624 0.0000 0.0000 0.46240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO
CC 03-03-20
643 of 873
0.4624Total0.4624 0.0000 0.0000
0.3858
Parking Lot 15576 0.0766 0.0000 0.0000 0.0766
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
78457.6 0.3858 0.0000 0.0000
13.0638
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0638
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.9866 12.9866 2.5000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
243360 1.3100e-
003
0.0119 0.0100
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2
CC 03-03-20
644 of 873
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Unmitigated0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Mitigated0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.4624
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Total 0.4624 0.0000 0.0000
0.3858
Parking Lot 15576 0.0766 0.0000 0.0000 0.0766
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
78457.6 0.3858 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
645 of 873
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.0336
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
4.7100e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total0.0384 0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 4.6000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 5.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer
Products
0.0336
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural
Coating
4.7100e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
CC 03-03-20
646 of 873
0.1556
8.0 Waste Detail
Total 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0.243032 /
0
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
0.243032 /
0
0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0925 3.0000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.1556
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
647 of 873
6.8747
Mitigated
Total 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
6.8747
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
13.67 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.8747
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000 6.8747
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
648 of 873
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation
Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power
6.8747
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year
Total 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
6.8747
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Automobile Care
Center
13.67 2.7749 0.1640 0.0000
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CC 03-03-20
649 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 0.99 3.68 2.34 0.01 0.25 0.10 0.35 0.07 0.09 0.16
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.87 1.64 1.49 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.09
Total Offsite 0.11 2.04 0.85 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.07
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2020 0.10 1.92 0.79 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.06
Total 2021 0.16 1.58 1.37 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.06 0.09
Total 2022 0.73 0.18 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Unmitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Onsite 0.05 0.46 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03
2020 Offsite 0.05 1.46 0.39 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03
2021 Onsite 0.10 1.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05
2021 Offsite 0.05 0.54 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.04
2022 Onsite 0.73 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
2022 Offiste 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition - 2020
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 4.34E-03 0.0394 0.0381 6.00E-05 2.34E-03 2.34E-03 2.23E-03 2.23E-03
Hauling 3.30E-04 0.0115 2.35E-03 3.00E-05 6.20E-04 4.00E-05 6.60E-04 1.70E-04 4.00E-05 2.10E-04
Vendor 8.00E-05 2.28E-03 6.10E-04 1.00E-05 1.20E-04 1.00E-05 1.30E-04 4.00E-05 1.00E-05 5.00E-05
Worker 1.70E-04 1.20E-04 1.25E-03 0.00E+00 3.70E-04 0.00E+00 3.70E-04 1.00E-04 0 1.00E-04
Total 4.92E-03 5.33E-02 4.23E-02 1.00E-04 4.06E-03 2.39E-03 6.45E-03 7.60E-04 2.28E-03 3.04E-03
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Site Preparation - 2020
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 5.70E-04 0 5.70E-04 6.00E-05 0 6.00E-05
Off-Road 1.71E-03 0.0211 0.0102 2.00E-05 8.40E-04 8.40E-04 7.70E-04 7.70E-04
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 4.00E-05 1.14E-03 3.00E-04 0.00E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E-05 7.00E-05 2.00E-05 1.00E-05 2.00E-05
Worker 4.00E-05 3.00E-05 3.10E-04 0.00E+00 9.00E-05 0.00E+00 9.00E-05 2.00E-05 0 3.00E-05
Total 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading - 2020
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 4.83E-03 0 4.83E-03 2.65E-03 0 2.65E-03
Off-Road 0.013 0.1181 0.1143 1.80E-04 7.01E-03 7.01E-03 6.69E-03 6.69E-03
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 2.40E-04 6.83E-03 1.82E-03 2.00E-05 3.70E-04 3.00E-05 4.00E-04 1.10E-04 3.00E-05 1.40E-04
Worker 5.00E-04 3.60E-04 3.75E-03 1.00E-05 1.10E-03 1.00E-05 1.10E-03 2.90E-04 1.00E-05 3.00E-04
Total 1.37E-02 1.25E-01 1.20E-01 2.10E-04 6.30E-03 7.05E-03 1.33E-02 3.05E-03 6.73E-03 9.78E-03
TOTAL ONSITE 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
650 of 873
Grading Soil Haul - 2020
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 1.72E-03 0 1.72E-03 2.60E-04 0 2.60E-04
Off-Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hauling 3.69E-02 1.2887 2.64E-01 3.50E-03 7.02E-02 4.19E-03 7.44E-02 1.95E-02 4.01E-03 2.35E-02
Vendor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3.69E-02 1.29E+00 2.64E-01 3.50E-03 7.19E-02 4.19E-03 7.61E-02 1.98E-02 4.01E-03 2.38E-02
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.04 1.29 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02
Building Construction - 2020
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.60E-04 0.0167 0.0167 0.0154 0.0154
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 4.82E-03 0.1385 0.0369 3.30E-04 7.49E-03 6.90E-04 8.18E-03 2.19E-03 6.60E-04 2.84E-03
Worker 0.0102 7.33E-03 0.0769 2.30E-04 0.0225 1.60E-04 0.0226 6.01E-03 1.40E-04 6.16E-03
Total 0.04 0.43 0.35 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02
TOTAL ONSITE 0.03 0.28 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 0.1011 1.042 0.9479 1.49E-03 0.0584 0.0584 0.0537 0.0537
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 1.62E-02 0.5096 0.1357 1.34E-03 3.06E-02 1.13E-03 3.17E-02 8.92E-03 1.08E-03 1.00E-02
Worker 3.86E-02 2.67E-02 0.2866 9.10E-04 0.0916 6.30E-04 0.0923 2.45E-02 5.80E-04 2.51E-02
Total 0.16 1.58 1.37 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.06 0.09
TOTAL ONSITE 0.10 1.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.05 0.54 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.04
Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 8.58E-03 0.0878 0.0894 1.40E-04 4.65E-03 4.65E-03 4.28E-03 4.28E-03
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 1.45E-03 0.0461 0.0122 1.30E-04 2.93E-03 9.00E-05 3.02E-03 8.50E-04 9.00E-05 9.40E-04
Worker 3.45E-03 2.30E-03 0.0252 8.00E-05 8.78E-03 6.00E-05 8.84E-03 2.35E-03 5.00E-05 2.40E-03
Total 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01
TOTAL ONSITE 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
651 of 873
Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 3.23E-03 0.0296 0.0352 6.00E-05 1.48E-03 1.48E-03 1.38E-03 1.38E-03
Paving 3.00E-05 0 0 0 0
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Worker 2.60E-04 1.70E-04 1.89E-03 1.00E-05 6.60E-04 0.00E+00 6.60E-04 1.80E-04 0.00E+00 1.80E-04
Total 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Arch. Coating 0.7117 0 0 0 0
Off-Road 2.05E-03 0.0141 0.0181 3.00E-05 8.20E-04 8.20E-04 8.20E-04 8.20E-04
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00
Worker 5.50E-04 3.60E-04 3.99E-03 1.00E-05 1.39E-03 1.00E-05 1.40E-03 3.70E-04 1.00E-05 3.80E-04
Total 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
652 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction
Unmitigated Run - with Best Control Measures for Fugitive Dust
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 4.65 17.31 11.03 0.04 1.17 0.47 1.64 0.32 0.43 0.76
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2020 1.83 35.21 14.44 0.09 2.07 0.59 2.66 0.58 0.55 1.14
TOTAL 2021 1.19 12.09 10.50 0.03 0.94 0.46 1.40 0.26 0.42 0.68
TOTAL 2022 26.59 6.56 6.76 0.02 0.50 0.26 0.76 0.14 0.24 0.38
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Onsite 0.86 8.48 7.32 0.01 0.18 0.4934 0.68 0.06 0.4604 0.52
2021 Onsite 0.77 7.98 7.26 0.01 0.00 0.4475 0.45 0.00 0.4115 0.41
2022 Onsite 26.39 4.78 5.19 0.01 0.00 0.2527 0.25 0.00 0.2356 0.24
Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Offsite 0.98 26.73 7.12 0.08 1.89 0.0943 1.98 0.52 0.0901 0.61
2021 Offsite 0.42 4.11 3.24 0.02 0.94 0.0135 0.95 0.26 0.0127 0.27
2022 Offsite 0.21 1.78 1.57 0.01 0.50 0.0058 0.51 0.14 0.0055 0.14
Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the
duration of each construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite.
CC 03-03-20
653 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction - with Mitigation (Level 3 DPFs for Eq. > 50 hp)
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 0.99 3.68 2.34 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.27 0.07 0.02 0.09
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.87 1.64 1.49 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02
Total Offsite 0.11 2.04 0.85 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.07
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2020 0.10 1.92 0.79 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.04
Total 2021 0.16 1.58 1.37 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.04
Total 2022 0.73 0.18 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Mitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Onsite 0.05 0.46 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
2020 Offsite 0.05 1.46 0.39 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.03
2021 Onsite 0.10 1.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
2021 Offsite 0.05 0.54 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.04
2022 Onsite 0.73 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2022 Offiste 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition - 2020
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 4.34E-03 0.0394 0.0381 6.00E-05 3.50E-04 3.50E-04 3.30E-04 3.30E-04
Hauling 3.30E-04 0.0115 2.35E-03 3.00E-05 6.20E-04 4.00E-05 6.60E-04 1.70E-04 4.00E-05 2.10E-04
Vendor 8.00E-05 2.28E-03 6.10E-04 1.00E-05 1.20E-04 1.00E-05 1.30E-04 4.00E-05 1.00E-05 5.00E-05
Worker 1.70E-04 1.20E-04 1.25E-03 0.00E+00 3.70E-04 0.00E+00 3.70E-04 1.00E-04 0 1.00E-04
Total 4.92E-03 5.33E-02 4.23E-02 1.00E-04 4.06E-03 4.00E-04 4.46E-03 7.60E-04 3.80E-04 1.14E-03
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Site Preparation - 2020
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 5.70E-04 0 5.70E-04 6.00E-05 0 6.00E-05
Off-Road 1.71E-03 0.0211 0.0102 2.00E-05 1.30E-04 1.30E-04 1.20E-04 1.20E-04
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 4.00E-05 1.14E-03 3.00E-04 0.00E+00 6.00E-05 1.00E-05 7.00E-05 2.00E-05 1.00E-05 2.00E-05
Worker 4.00E-05 3.00E-05 3.10E-04 0.00E+00 9.00E-05 0.00E+00 9.00E-05 2.00E-05 0 3.00E-05
Total 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading - 2020
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 4.83E-03 0 4.83E-03 2.65E-03 0 2.65E-03
Off-Road 0.013 0.1181 0.1143 1.80E-04 1.05E-03 1.05E-03 1.00E-03 1.00E-03
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 2.40E-04 6.83E-03 1.82E-03 2.00E-05 3.70E-04 3.00E-05 4.00E-04 1.10E-04 3.00E-05 1.40E-04
Worker 5.00E-04 3.60E-04 3.75E-03 1.00E-05 1.10E-03 1.00E-05 1.10E-03 2.90E-04 1.00E-05 3.00E-04
Total 1.37E-02 1.25E-01 1.20E-01 2.10E-04 6.30E-03 1.09E-03 7.38E-03 3.05E-03 1.04E-03 4.09E-03
TOTAL ONSITE 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
654 of 873
Grading Soil Haul - 2020
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Dust 1.72E-03 0 1.72E-03 2.60E-04 0 2.60E-04
Off-Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hauling 3.69E-02 1.2887 2.64E-01 3.50E-03 7.02E-02 4.19E-03 7.44E-02 1.95E-02 4.01E-03 2.35E-02
Vendor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3.69E-02 1.29E+00 2.64E-01 3.50E-03 7.19E-02 4.19E-03 7.61E-02 1.98E-02 4.01E-03 2.38E-02
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.04 1.29 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02
Building Construction - 2020
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 0.0276 0.2833 0.2364 3.60E-04 0.00251 0.00251 0.00231 0.00231
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 4.82E-03 0.1385 0.0369 3.30E-04 7.49E-03 6.90E-04 8.18E-03 2.19E-03 6.60E-04 2.84E-03
Worker 0.0102 7.33E-03 0.0769 2.30E-04 0.0225 1.60E-04 0.0226 6.01E-03 1.40E-04 6.16E-03
Total 0.04 0.43 0.35 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
TOTAL ONSITE 0.03 0.28 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
Building Construction - 2021
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 0.1011 1.042 0.9479 1.49E-03 0.00876 0.00876 0.00806 0.00806
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 1.62E-02 0.5096 0.1357 1.34E-03 3.06E-02 1.13E-03 3.17E-02 8.92E-03 1.08E-03 1.00E-02
Worker 3.86E-02 2.67E-02 0.2866 9.10E-04 0.0916 6.30E-04 0.0923 2.45E-02 5.80E-04 2.51E-02
Total 0.16 1.58 1.37 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.04
TOTAL ONSITE 0.10 1.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.05 0.54 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.04
Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 8.58E-03 0.0878 0.0894 1.40E-04 7.00E-04 7.00E-04 6.40E-04 6.40E-04
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 1.45E-03 0.0461 0.0122 1.30E-04 2.93E-03 9.00E-05 3.02E-03 8.50E-04 9.00E-05 9.40E-04
Worker 3.45E-03 2.30E-03 0.0252 8.00E-05 8.78E-03 6.00E-05 8.84E-03 2.35E-03 5.00E-05 2.40E-03
Total 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
655 of 873
Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Off-Road 3.23E-03 0.0296 0.0352 6.00E-05 4.00E-04 4.00E-04 3.90E-04 3.90E-04
Paving 3.00E-05 0 0 0 0
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Worker 2.60E-04 1.70E-04 1.89E-03 1.00E-05 6.60E-04 0.00E+00 6.60E-04 1.80E-04 0.00E+00 1.80E-04
Total 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural Coating - 2022
Mitigated Construction
Category tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Arch. Coating 0.7117 0 0 0 0
Off-Road 2.05E-03 0.0141 0.0181 3.00E-05 1.20E-04 1.20E-04 1.20E-04 1.20E-04
Hauling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vendor 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0 0.00E+00
Worker 5.50E-04 3.60E-04 3.99E-03 1.00E-05 1.39E-03 1.00E-05 1.40E-03 3.70E-04 1.00E-05 3.80E-04
Total 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ONSITE 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL OFFSITE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CC 03-03-20
656 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction
Mitigated Run - with Level 3 DPFs for Eq. > 50 hp and Best Control Measures for Fugitive Dust
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 4.65 17.31 11.03 0.04 1.17 0.10 1.27 0.32 0.09 0.42
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2020 1.83 35.21 14.44 0.09 2.07 0.17 2.24 0.58 0.16 0.74
TOTAL 2021 1.19 12.09 10.50 0.03 0.94 0.08 1.02 0.26 0.07 0.33
TOTAL 2022 26.59 6.56 6.76 0.02 0.50 0.05 0.55 0.14 0.05 0.18
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Onsite 0.86 8.48 7.32 0.01 0.18 0.0741 0.26 0.06 0.0690 0.13
2021 Onsite 0.77 7.98 7.26 0.01 0.00 0.0671 0.07 0.00 0.0618 0.06
2022 Onsite 26.39 4.78 5.19 0.01 0.00 0.0444 0.04 0.00 0.0418 0.04
Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2020 Offsite 0.98 26.73 7.12 0.08 1.89 0.0943 1.98 0.52 0.0901 0.61
2021 Offsite 0.42 4.11 3.24 0.02 0.94 0.0135 0.95 0.26 0.0127 0.27
2022 Offsite 0.21 1.78 1.57 0.01 0.50 0.0058 0.51 0.14 0.0055 0.14
Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the
duration of each construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite.
CC 03-03-20
657 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Operations
Existing Land Use - Total AnnualEmission Rates 2019
Tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 0.0384 0.00E+00 2.40E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Energy Use 1.31E-03 0.0119 0.01 7.00E-05 9.10E-04 9.10E-04 9.10E-04 9.10E-04
Mobile Sources 0.0213 0.0257 0.1784 3.70E-04 0.0358 3.20E-04 0.0361 9.53E-03 3.00E-04 9.82E-03
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0
Total 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01
CC 03-03-20
658 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Operations
Existing Land Use - Total AnnualEmission Rates 2022
Tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 0.0384 0.00E+00 2.40E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Energy Use 1.31E-03 0.0119 0.01 7.00E-05 9.10E-04 9.10E-04 9.10E-04 9.10E-04
Mobile Sources 0.0164 0.02 0.136 3.30E-04 0.0356 2.80E-04 0.0359 9.47E-03 2.60E-04 9.73E-03
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0
Total 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01
Proprosed Project - Total AnnualEmission Rates 2022
Tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 0.5956 2.00E-05 2.54E-03 0.00E+00 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 1.00E-05 1.00E-05
Energy Use 3.20E-02 0.2908 0.2443 1.74E-03 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02
Mobile Sources 0.3137 0.3403 3.3609 9.51E-03 1.1053 7.26E-03 1.1126 0.2938 6.69E-03 0.3005
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0
Total 0.94 0.63 3.61 0.01 1.11 0.03 1.13 0.29 0.03 0.32
Net AnnualEmission Rates
Tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 0.5572 0.00002 0.0023 0 0 0.00001 0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00001
Energy Use 0.03069 0.2789 0.2343 0.00167 0 0.02119 0.02119 0 0.02119 0.02119
Mobile Sources 0.2973 0.3203 3.2249 0.00918 1.0697 0.00698 1.0767 0.28433 0.00643 0.29077
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0.89 0.60 3.46 0.01 1.07 0.03 1.10 0.28 0.03 0.31
BAAQMD Threshold (Annual)10.00 10.00 NA NA NA NA 15.00 NA NA 10.00
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA NA No NA NA No
CC 03-03-20
659 of 873
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Operations
Annual emissions divided by 365 days/year to obtain average daily emissions.
Existing Land Use - Total AnnualEmission Rates 2022
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proprosed Project - Total AnnualEmission Rates 2022
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy Use 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 2 2 18 0 6 0 6 2 0 2
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5 3 20 0 6 0 6 2 0 2
Net AnnualEmission Rates
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Area Sources 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energy Use 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile Sources 2 2 18 0 6 0 6 2 0 2
Waste Generation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water/Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5 3 19 0 6 0 6 2 0 2
BAAQMD Threshold (Daily)54 54 NA NA NA NA 82 NA NA 54
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA NA No NA NA No
CC 03-03-20
660 of 873
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary
Operation 2022
Existing Land Use - 2019
MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources 0 4.60E-04 4.60E-04 0.00E+00 0 0 0%
Energy Use 0 13.45 13.45 2.50E-04 2.40E-04 14 25%
Mobile Sources 0 33.66 33.66 1.40E-03 0 34 62%
Waste Generation 2.7749 0 2.7749 0.164 0 7 13%
Water/Wastewater 0.086 6.47E-03 0.0925 3.00E-04 1.90E-04 0 0%
Total 3 47 50 0 0 54 100%
Proposed Project - 2022
MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources 0 4.93E-03 4.93E-03 1.00E-05 0 0.01 0%
Energy Use 0 324.55 324.55 6.07E-03 5.80E-03 326 25%
Mobile Sources 0 860.63 860.63 2.74E-02 0 861 66%
Waste Generation 42.7337 0 42.7337 2.5255 0 106 8%
Water/Wastewater 2.7887 0.3247 3.1135 9.60E-03 6.06E-03 5 0%
Total 46 1186 1231 3 0 1,299 100%
Net Emission Rates from Proposed Project
MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources 0 0.00447 0.00447 0.00001 0 0.00 0%
Energy Use 0 311.0965 311.0965 0.00582 0.00556 313 25%
Mobile Sources 0 826.9781 826.9781 0.026 0 828 65%
Waste Generation 39.9588 0 39.9588 2.3615 0 99 8%
Water/Wastewater 2.7027 0.31823 3.021 0.0093 0.00587 5.0 0%
Amoritized Construction 28 2%
Total 42.66 1138.397 1181.059 2.4026 0.01147 1,272 100%
BAAQMD Threshold 1,100
Exceeds Threshold Yes
Construction
Construction
Unmitigated Const.
2020 454
2021 343
2022 41
Total Construction 838
30-Year Amortization 28
BAAQMD Threshold 1100
Exceeds Threshold No
CC 03-03-20
661 of 873
MEMORANDUM
DATE February 20, 2020
TO Gian Martire, Senior Planner, City of Cupertino
FROM Terri McCracken, Associate Principal, PlaceWorks
Jacqueline Protsman, Project Planner, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Cupertino De Anza Hotel Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments Memo for City Council
INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino distributed a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
De Anza Hotel Project on Friday, June 28, 2019. This started a 30-day public comment period for
agencies and the public to submit comments on the Public Review Draft Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated July 2, 2019. The comment period ended on Monday, July 29,
2019. No comments were received during the 30-day public comment period.
On December 2, 2019, during the noticing period for the December 10, 2019 Planning Commission
meeting, four late comment letters and emails were received by the City. These comments were
responded to in a Response to Comments Memo dated December 4, 2019. The Response to
Comments Memo was submitted to the Planning Commission at its December 10, 2019 meeting as
Attachment 11 to the Staff Report.
Following the public noticing of City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 2020, two late
comment letters were received by the City. The first was received on Monday, January 20, 2020 and
the second was received on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. Although CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines do
not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received on an IS/MND, as with
the late comments submitted in December 2019, the City has prepared the following written
responses to the additional late comments with the intent of conducting a comprehensive evaluation
of the proposed project.
Responses to the additional late comment letters are provided in Table 1, which is attached to this
Responses to Comments Memo. The table is organized by comment letter number, name of
commenter, date of comment letter, each comment, and a response to each comment raising
environmental issues. The comment letters received by the City are also attached to this
Memorandum in their original format.
The comments and responses, and text revisions discussed in this Responses to Comments Memo do
not require any “substantial revisions” to the IS/MND as defined in the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073.5. No new, avoidable significant impacts have been
identified, and no mitigation measures or project revisions are required to reduce the environmental
effects of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. In addition revisions to the text of the
CC 03-03-20
662 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 2
IS/MND merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifictions to the IS/MND. Accordingly, no
recirculation of the Public Review Draft IS/MND is required. This Responses to Comments Memo
together with the Public Review Draft IS/MND constitutes the Final Draft IS/MND for the proposed
project.
Attachments:
A: Late Comment Letter #1: Michael R. Lozeau, Lozeau Drury LLP (January 20, 2020)
B: Late Comment Letter #2: Michael Goolsby, Better Neighborhoods, Inc. (January 21, 2020)
C: Affidavit of Mailing for the Notice of Intent for the IS/MND, De Anza Hotel
CC 03-03-20
663 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 3
RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
1. Michael R. Lozeau, Lozeau Drury LLP
Comment
1-1
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 270 (“LIUNA”) and its members regarding the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively the “MND”) prepared for the De Anza Hotel Project (“Project”) (GPA-2018-01, DP-2018-01, ASA-
2018-02, DA-2018-01, U-2018-02, EA-2018-03) for Applicant Sherly Kwok of De Anza Properties (“Applicant”), including all actions related or referring to the
proposed demolition of the existing commercial building and development of a hotel. The Project site is located at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard in the
City of Cupertino, California. APN: 326-10-061.
Response
1-1
The comment is noted.
Comment
1-2
On August 1, 2019, our office submitted a CEQA and Land Use Notice Request on behalf of LIUNA to Mr. Gian Paolo Martire, Mr. Benjamin Fu, and
Ms. Grace Schmidt requesting that the City of Cupertino (“City”) send us notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken,
authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions on the Project. See Exhibit D. We did not receive notice of the
Planning Commission meeting held on December 10, 2019 at which the Planning Commission considered recommending the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (“MND”) to City Council for adoption. These comments would have been submitted at that meeting and we would have attended the meeting if
we had received notice as requested.
Response
1-2
The City adhered to all required noticing procedures required for the CEQA process pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 21092(b)(3), which states:
“The notice required by this section shall be given to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested
notice and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: (A) Publication, no fewer times than required by Section 6061 of the Government
Code, by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the
notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. (B) Posting of notice by
the lead agency on- and off-site in the area where the project is to be located. (C) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll.”
The Notice of Intent to adopt a IS/MND for the De Anza Hotel project was sent by certified mail on July 3, 2019 to the address stated below, which is the last
known name and address that the City had on file, based on the latest equalized assessment roll, for Lozeau Drury, LLP. As shown in Attachment C, the
CC 03-03-20
664 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 4
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Affidavit of Mailing for the Notice of Intent for the De Anza Hotel project, of this Response to Comments Memo, the notice was sent to the commenter at
the following address:
Lozeau Drury, LLP
Attn: Theresa Rettinghouse
1939 Harrison St #150
Oakland, Ca. 94612
Noticing for the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 and the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 2020 was conducted in
accordance with the City’s standard noticing procedures. The procedures for noticing public meetings are not governed by CEQA; therefore, no further
response is required.
Comment
1-3
After reviewing the Project and MND, it is evident that the MND is inadequate and fails as an informational document because there is a “fair
argument” that the Project may have unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Cupertino prepare an
environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et
seq.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offerman, PE, CIH, environmental consulting firm
SWAPE, and noise expert Derek Watry. Mr. Offermann’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by
reference and entirety. SWAPE’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Mr. Watry’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Response
1-3
Responses to this comment are provided in the responses to comments that follow. The following responses explain why the comments do not provide
substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. In some instances the
responses to comments that follow include insignificant modifications, amplifications, and clarifications to the Public Review Draft IS/MND, which are shown
as the strike through text for deleted items and double underline for added items, and demonstrate that the MND is the appropriate CEQA document for
the proposed project, and that the preparation of an EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (see CEQA Guidelines Section
15073.5(d)).
Comment
1-4
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant proposes to demolish the existing commercial building on the Project site and construct a seven-story hotel with up to 156 rooms, a
rooftop terrace, lounge, bar, ground-floor conference facilities, a restaurant, and four levels of below-grade parking.
Response
1-4
The comment is noted.
CC 03-03-20
665 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 5
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
1-5
II. STANDING
Members of LIUNA Local 270 live, work, and/or recreate in the vicinity of the Project Site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly
executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group or environmental group.
LIUNA Local 270 members live and work in areas that will be affected by traffic, noise, air pollution, wildlife impacts and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions
generated by the Project. Therefore, LIUNA Local 270 and its members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its
environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
Response
1-5
The comment is noted.
Comment
1-6
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports
a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better
Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75,
88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 04–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly
as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the
environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.
“The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the
environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE
v. CRA).
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield
Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the
public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124
Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has,
in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,
392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.
An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid
preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR
(14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he
adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to
CC 03-03-20
666 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 6
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake
Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be
appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects
identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2);
Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the
environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of
Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse
environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931;
Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance
of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.
Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence.
[Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better
argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than
factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the
prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair
argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of
environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).
CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).
The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental
analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical
conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
CC 03-03-20
667 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 7
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained,
“the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121–23.
Response
1-6
The commenter’s description of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law is noted.
Comment
1-7
III. DISCUSSION
A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents
regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (Jan. 16, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is
likely that the Project will expose future hotel employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the
cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in modern hotel construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas
formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-
formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for
flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, pp. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that the employees of the Project are expected to
experience significant work-day exposures. Id. p. 4. This exposure of employees would result in “significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to
formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.” Id. Assuming they work
eight hour days, five days per week, an employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 16.4 per million, assuming all materials are compliant
with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. This is more than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id.
Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the
additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. I-280, Homestead Road, Sunnyvale-
Saratoga Road) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air. Ex. A, p. 10. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative
health impacts that will result to employees working at the Project.
Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to
reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks,
including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density
fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting
formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Id., pp. 11-12.
CC 03-03-20
668 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 8
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s
comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to
investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to workers, Mr. Offermann identifies the
investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and
establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Id., pp. 4-9. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air
quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry
Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that
advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not
generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may
exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA
calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding,
the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise
from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will
be from the Project. Employees will be users of the hotel. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is
built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into
the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users
and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an
effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a
‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying
CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001,
subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future employees of the project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is
as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the
project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
Response
1-7
In addition to CEQA, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines require an evaluation of project-generated impacts on the environment. Based on discussion between
staff at PlaceWorks and BAAQMD, hotels are not considered sensitive uses because guests are onsite for short periods of time, which are much shorter than
30-years or 70-years used to calculate health risks. For the same reason, BAAQMD also does not consider hotel employees to be sensitive receptors.
CC 03-03-20
669 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 9
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
The commenter speculates about the types of indoor building materials that would be used during hotel construction. There is no substantial evidence that
the project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. As described on page 3-11 and 3-12, the
proposed project would comply with CALGreen, which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building “shall meet the
requirements for formaldehyde as specified in California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 California Code of
Regulations Section 93120 et seq.).” Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted, includes the CALGreen
requirements with local amendments for projects in the city, including measures affecting indoor air quality. As described on page 3-11, CALGreen,
established planning and design standards for reducing internal air contaminants. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, compliance with a
regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be
reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.
In summary, without substantial evidence that building materials that will be used in project construction will emit formaldehyde gas in levels that will
exceed the State’s emission limits, the commenter’s assertion that future project employees or guests could be at risk for carcinogens constitutes
speculation, not substantial evidence. Additionally, the appellant speculates that the proposed project could have an effect on the future users and guests
at the hotel, which is not considered to be an impact under CEQA and need not be analyzed in the IS/MND.
Comment
1-8
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife by Window Collisions.
The IS/MND states that the Project “would alter the physical characteristics of the site; however, this change is not expected to contribute to a
substantial increase in the risk of collisions to local and migratory birds.” IS/MND, p. 4-22. We had wildlife expert, Dr. Shawn Smallwood, review the analysis
of bird collision impacts and mitigation measures. Dr. Smallwood concurs with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures but believes they
must include a post-construction fatality monitoring component in order to ensure their effectiveness. In order to inform of whether and to what degree
fatality reduction measures or compensation measures might be needed to mitigate bird collisions with windows, Dr. Smallwood recommends adding a
requirement that the Project conduct weekly fatality searches and a qualified biologist integrate carcass detection trials into the fatality searches to
estimate a carcass detection rate. Dr. Smallwood’s recommended fatality monitoring strategy will inform whether or not the mitigation measures identified
in the MND actually address any potential significant bird collision impacts.
Response
1-8
As shown in Section III, Biological Resources, on pages on pages 4-22 through 4-24 of the IS/MND, impacts from bird collision were found to be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required. As discussed in the IS/MND, avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings, towers
and other man-made structures is a common occurrence in city and suburban settings. The frequency of bird collisions in a particular area is dependent on
numerous factors, including: characteristics of building height, fenestration (the arrangement of windows and doors on the sides of a building) and exterior
treatments of windows and their relationship to other buildings and vegetation in the area; local and migratory avian populations, their movement patterns,
and proximity of water, food and other attractants, time of year; prevailing winds; weather conditions; and other variables.
CC 03-03-20
670 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 10
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
As discussed on page 4-22 and 4-23 of the IS/MND, the proposed hotel would alter the physical characteristics of the site; however, this change is not
expected to contribute to a substantial increase in the risk of collisions to local and migratory birds because: the surrounding area is already intensively
developed with structures ranging in height from approximately 18 feet to 45 feet with similar bulk and surface treatment; the proposed building materials
would have a light reflectance value of more than 15 percent, and the proposed lighting is low-level illumination with no up-lighting on the building exterior;
and the railings located on the second-floor balconies and roof top lounge would also incorporate UV coating, frosting, and fritting to make them visible to
birds and reduce bird collisions. Because the site vicinity is already intensively developed with urban use and the site is currently developed with an
occupied structure, most birds, as under existing conditions, would likely acclimate to the presence of the new building once completed. The location of the
project site, the building design features and selected materials, were determined to adequately address the remote potential for special-status bird species
dispersing through the site vicinity to collide with the new structure and be injured or killed. These measures would serve to minimize the potential for bird
strikes through the use of bird-friendly design guidelines in the treatment of windows and other aspects of the proposed hotel building, and would ensure
any potential impact would be less than significant for special-status birds and more common bird species. Because the site is not in a location considered a
high risk for collision, and because bird safe design guidelines are included in the design of the project that would minimize any potential collision incidents,
no further monitoring is required to reduce a potential impact. However, the measure identified by the commenter regarding post-construction bird
monitoring will be forwarded to the decision-makers for consideration as a condition of approval.
Comment
1-9
C. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Construction Emission Impacts.
SWAPE reviewed the IS/MND and construction emission analysis and found that the IS/MND incorrectly analyzed these emissions. The BAAQMD
provides significance thresholds to evaluate air pollution emissions in the form of pounds per day. In order to compare the Project’s air pollutant emissions
to these thresholds, the IS/MND stated that “[a]verage daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active
construction days.” IS/MND, p. 4-11. However, SWAPE states that the IS/MND’s conversion of annual emissions measured in tons per year to pounds per
year and then divided by the number of construction workdays is incorrect. Ex. B, p. 2.
California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) provides three types of output files – winter, summer, and annual. Winter and summer output
files provide emissions estimates in pounds per day while the annual output files measure emissions in tons per year. Id. CEQA requires the most
conservative analysis, and the use of converted annual CalEEMod output files may underestimate emissions. SWAPE therefore concludes that the IS/MND’s
conversion from the annual tons per year to pounds per day was unsubstantiated and incorrect, and the IS/MND should have provided and utilized
emissions from the winter or summer CalEEMod output files in order to compare to the BAAQMD thresholds. Id.
Response
1-9
BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are based on average daily emissions. The results in CalEEMod for summer and winter provide maximum daily (peak)
emissions rather than average daily emission rates. Consequently, in order to accurately compare project emissions to the BAAQMD average daily emissions
thresholds, the annual emissions results are used. Annual emissions in the model are the emissions for the entire 365-day period and are a summation of
summer days using daily summer emission rates, and winter days, using winter emissions rates. The annual emissions are reported in tons per year
(tons/year) rather than pounds per day (lbs/day). The Appendix materials clearly shows how annual pounds per day are converted to average daily
CC 03-03-20
671 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 11
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
emissions in lbs/day for the number of construction days in the 365-day period in order not to underreport emissions. Therefore, the commenter is not
correct that winter and summer rates that are used in the analysis omit any emissions. The results presented in the IS/MND are substantiated and correct.
In any event, it is not correct that CEQA requires that impacts be determined based on the most conservative analysis. CEQA documents are required to be
based on substantial evidence, which “includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact." (CEQA Section
21080(e)(1)).
Comment
1-10
D. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality
Impacts.
The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-
specific information related to a number of factors. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the
Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an
underestimation of the Project’s emissions. Id. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be corrected in a
subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project.
Response
1-10
The commenter incorrectly asserts that values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND. Responses to this assertion
are provided in the responses to comments that follow. Please see Responses to Comments 1-11 through 1-20 below.
Comment
1-11
1. The IS/MND relies on the use of an underestimated land use size.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the floor surface area values of the proposed parking lot and hotel land uses were
underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project’s emissions. Id. According to the IS/MND, the Project proposes to
construct an 18,000 square-foot driveway and surface parking lot and a 129,000 square-foot hotel building. IS/MND, p. 3-25. However, the CalEEMod
output files reveals that only 860 square feet of the parking lot and only 122,256 square feet of the hotel were included in the model. IS/MND Revised App.
A, pp 93, 135. By underestimating the floor surface areas of the proposed parking lot and hotel land uses, the model underestimates the Project’s
construction and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Response
1-11
As with any active project undergoing an approval process, multiple sets of site plans are submitted that respond to City comments throughout the
environmental review process. This response explains that, even with revisions to the precise square footage, the air quality analysis in the IS/MND is
conservative. Emissions associated with the proposed project could increase by up to one-third over what is currently proposed before a significant
construction or operational impact would occur under the BAAQMD significance criteria for construction activities. Emissions associated with the proposed
project could increase by up to 11 times over what is currently proposed before a significant operational impact would occur under the BAAQMD
significance criteria for criteria air pollutant emissions.
CC 03-03-20
672 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 12
Construction
During the construction phase, off-road equipment is the source of construction emissions. The other main source of particulate matter emissions is from
fugitive dust emissions, which are discussed below. CalEEMod’s construction equipment mix is based on the acreage that would be disturbed by the project
(1.29 acres), which is fully captured in the model. CalEEMod also utilizes the building square footage to generate default worker and vendor trips and
architectural coating emissions. As identified in Appendix A, the model run assumed up to 132,614 square feet of new buildings, which is 1,898 square feet
more building square footage than the current site plan dated April 19, 2019 (130,716 square feet). Therefore, changes to precise building numbers have
not changed the outcome of the model for construction equipment emissions.
As stated on page 4-10 of the IS/MND, BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with
implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices, which are required in Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Therefore, the size of the project would have no
bearing on this impact conclusion.
With respect to construction exhaust, as stated above, CalEEMod generates equipment defaults based on the acreage disturbed (for this project, off-road
equipment on 1.29 acres) and CalEEMod generates emissions due to painting and worker/vendor trips (on-road) based on the estimated square footage of
the project. As demonstrated in Table 4-2, Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates, on page 4-12 of the IS/MND, the proposed
project is substantially below the BAAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds. For example, the proposed project would generate average daily emissions of 5
pounds per day of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 17 pounds per day of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and the BAAQMD threshold is 54 pounds per day for
each of these pollutants; the proposed project would generate less than 1 pound per day of exhaust from particulate matter (PM10) and (PM2.5) and the
BAAQMD thresholds are 82 and 54 pounds per day, respectively. Accordingly, as previously stated, the proposed project is substantially below the BAAQMD
criteria air pollutant thresholds. As shown in Table 4-5, Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated, of the IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ-2, the cancer risk from the project’s localized construction emissions would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for residential-based
receptors. The proposed project would generate 5.10 in a million cancer risk level and the BAAQMD threshold is 10 in a million cancer risk level. Therefore,
the changes in the proposed building estimates would not change the less-than-significant conclusion.
Operational Phase
With respect to operational impacts, with 156 hotel rooms the proposed project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of
criteria air pollutants because it would not exceed the level of population or housing projected in City or regional planning efforts through 2040, and it
would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region. No changes or revisions to the
precise building and pavement estimates would affect this conclusion.
As shown in Table 4-3, Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the proposed project
would not exceed the BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds. For example, the proposed project would generate net new average daily emissions of 1 pound
per day of reactive organic gasses (ROG) and 1 pound per day of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and the BAAQMD threshold is 10 pounds per day for each of these
CC 03-03-20
673 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 13
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
pollutants; the proposed project would generate 1 pound per day of exhaust from particulate matter (PM10) and less than one pound per day of PM2.5 and
the BAAQMD thresholds are 15 and 10 pounds per day, respectively.
Transportation emissions are the largest source of emissions associated with the proposed project, resulting in 65 percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and 53 percent of the NOx emissions associated with the project. Vehicle trips are based on number of hotel rooms (156 rooms), which is
consistent with the current project description. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would continue to result in the generation of 84 AM
(morning) peak hour trips and 99 PM (evening) peak hour trips on a weekday1 and would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than
44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, impacts associated with CO
hotspots would continue to be less than significant even with the changes to the site plan shown on the April 19, 2019 plans. Odors associated with the
proposed hotel would not change with these modifications to the site plans and therefore no impact conclusions would change.
For building energy use and area sources, the CalEEMod runs are based on a total of 132,614 square feet of hotel use (122,256 square foot hotel + 10,358
square foot restaurant inside the hotel) and a 95,923 square-foot parking garage, which is higher than the hotel square footage identified in the project
description (129,000-square-foot hotel) of the IS/MND and the most recent site plans dated April 19, 2019, which show a 130,716-square-foot hotel and
95,205 square foot parking garage; therefore, the analysis is conservative. During operation, the surface parking lot does not generate emissions; however,
CalEEMod assumes long-term operational energy use associated with the parking structure.
As a result, the IS/MND provides a conservative estimate of the project’s construction and operational emissions. Minor corrections to the building square
footages identified in the most recent April 19, 2020 site plan would result in nominally less emissions compared to what was evaluated in the IS/MND,
which are already substantially below the BAAQMD construction and operational emissions significance thresholds.
The second sentence in the first paragraph under subheading “Construction” on page 3-25 of Chapter 3, Project Description, has been revised as follows:
According to the most recent site plans submitted for the project dated April 19, 2019, the Pproject construction would result in a approximately
129,000130,716-square-foot hotel building, 88,00095,205-square-foot subterranean garage, and 18,00019,163-square-foot driveway and surface
parking.
Therefore, this revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Public Draft IS/MND.
1 Transportation Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. May 16, 2019, Table 5, Project Trip Generation Estimates.
CC 03-03-20
674 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 14
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
1-12
2. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated changes to intensity factors.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model’s CO2 intensity factor was artificially reduced from 641.35 to 10.84, the CH4
intensity factor was reduced from 0.029 to 0, and the N2O intensity factor was reduced from 0.006 to 0. IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 96, 138, Ex. B, p. 3.
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is that “Carbon Intensity factors adjusted for
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Power.” IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 94, 136. Furthermore, the IS states that Silicon Valley Clean Energy will supply electricity to
the Project site. IS/MND, p. 4-30. However, neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated
carbon intensity factors. Ex. B, p. 4. Without any evidence supporting this, reliance on these reductions violates CEQA.
Response
1-12
The commenter incorrectly asserts that reliance on the applied carbon intensity factors is a violation of CEQA. As identified in Revised Appendix A, the
carbon intensity associated with the proposed project is based on the power content of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). In 2017 the City of Cupertino
entered into a clean purchase power agreement with SVCE, effectively switching from PG&E to the SVCE for the City’s electricity needs in order to purchase
carbon free electricity at lower rates. The default electricity option for Cupertino is 50 percent from renewable energy sources and 50 percent from non-
polluting hydroelectric sources. Although all electricity in Cupertino is supplied from renewable or hydroelectric sources that do not produce GHG emissions
(i.e., zero pounds per megawatthour (lbs/MwH) in carbon intensity), the carbon intensity of SVCE is conservatively based on the power content of SVCE’s
power sources, as identified in their 2018 Power Content Label. Data from EPA's eGRID database is used to provide a weighted average of metric tons of
carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatthour (MTCO2e/kWh) by power plant type (solar, natural gas, etc.), which is then used to provide a conservative
estimate of the carbon intensity of SVCE’s energy. This methodology is described in Revised Appendix A. The nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) carbon
intensity were zeroed out because they are already applied in the conversion of N2O to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (<0.0001 lb N2O/MwH) and CH4 to
CO2e (0.000033 lbs CH4/Mwh).
Comment
1-13
3. The IS/MND fails to include the total amount of material export.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the IS/MND’s model failed to include the total amount of material export expected to
occur during Project construction. Id. According to the IS/MND, “[t]he proposed Project would require up to 72,000 cubic yards of cut.” IS/MND, p. 3-25.
However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that only 71,054 cubic yards of material export were included in the model. IS/MND Revised
App. A, pp. 95, 137, Ex. B, p. 4. The underestimation of 946 cubic yards of material export presents an issue, as the inclusion of the entire amount of
material export within the model is necessary to calculate the emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and
additional hauling truck trips. Ex. B, p. 4. As a result of the IS/MND failing to include the total amount of material export, emissions generated during Project
construction may be underestimated.
Response
1-13
The air quality modeling is based on the amount of soil haul that was anticipated to be needed for the proposed project, which is 71,054 cubic yards. The
project description used a rounded number. Consequently, the modeling included in the Revised Appendix A accurately portrays emissions from soil haul
and emissions are not underestimated. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4-2, Construction Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates, and Table 4-5,
Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated, construction emissions are substantially below the regional thresholds and risk thresholds, respectively.
CC 03-03-20
675 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 15
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
The third sentence in the third paragraph under subheading “Demolition and Site Preparation” on page 3-25 of Chapter 3, Project Description has been
revised as follows:
The proposed project would require up to 72,000 71,054 cubic yards of cut.
This revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Public Draft IS/MND.
Comment
1-14
4. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated changes to pieces of construction equipment.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the number of several pieces of construction equipment were reduced to zero. IS/MND
Revised App. A, pp. 95, 138, Ex. B, p. 4. According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“No grading soil haul equipment.” IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 94, 136. However, this change is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated
appendices. Without any evidence supporting this, reliance on these reductions violates CEQA.
Response
1-14
The CalEEMod construction model runs included in Revised Appendix A shows that the grading phase was separated into two subphases that have the same
start and end dates: ‘grading’ and ‘grading soil haul’. Emissions from the off-road construction equipment are included in the grading subphase. Emissions
from haul trips are included in the grading soil haul subphase. Therefore, no changes to the modeling a necessary because grading haul equipment was
included in the modeling.
Comment
1-15
5. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated changes to fleet fix.
The CalEEMod output files demonstrate that several fleet mix percentage values were manually altered. IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 95, 137, Ex. B,
p. 5. The explanation provided in the file is: “Refer to CalEEMod inputs fleet mix.” IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 94. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated
appendices mention or justify these changes. Ex. B, p. 5. Without any evidence supporting this, reliance on the model violates CEQA.
Response
1-15
The commenter incorrectly asserts that the data used for the fleet mix is a violation of CEQA. The fleet mix in CalEEMod is based on the default fleet in
EMFAC 2017 software. However, the fleet mix in EMFAC is based on vehicle miles traveled and not based on trips. In general, truck trip length is much
longer than passenger vehicle trip length. As a result, the default EMFAC fleet mix in CalEEMod has a disproportionately high number of trucks allocated to a
land use development project. As shown in Appendix A, if the default fleet mix was used, the model would have assumed that the project generated 97
heavy-duty vehicle trips and 176 medium-duty vehicle trips (273 trips) on a daily basis, which is clearly not accurate for a hotel project. In order to provide a
more accurate fleet mix for hotel projects, PlaceWorks conducted a survey of applicants of hotel projects in order to estimate the number of vendor
deliveries that would occur on a daily basis (e.g., linen service, food service, garbage/recycling service, etc.). The modeling was adjusted based on the results
of the survey, which show that the vast majority of trips to a hotel are from passenger vehicle used by hotel employees and guests. This information is
included in Revised Appendix A and substantiates the changes to the model defaults.
CC 03-03-20
676 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 16
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
1-16
6. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated changes to wastewater treatment system percentages.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the wastewater treatment system percentages were manually altered. IS/MND Revised
App. A, pp. 96, 138, 139, Ex. B, p. 6. The explanation provided is “Refer to CalEEMod inputs.” IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 94, 136. However, the IS/MND fails
to justify this statement or mention the changes. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each type of wastewater treatment system is associated with
different GHG emission factors. Therefore, artificially altering the wastewater treatment system percentages may result in an underestimation of the
Project’s GHG emissions. Ex. B, p. 6. Without any evidence supporting these changes, reliance on the model violates CEQA.
Response
1-16
The standard model inputs were revised to more accurately describe Cupertino’s wastewater treatment system. Cupertino is served by a tertiary treated
wastewater system. Revised Appendix A, of the IS/MND, shows that model was modified to include 100 percent aerobic treatment rather than the state
mix, which includes septic tanks and lagoons.
Comment
1-17
7. The IS/MND relies on an incorrect indoor water use rate.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the indoor water use rate, used to estimate the Project’s GHG emissions associated with
the supply and treatment of water, was incorrectly changed from the CalEEMod default value without sufficient justification. Id. According to the IS/MND,
“[t]he estimated water demand is 156 hotel rooms x 390 square foot per room x 0.50 gpd/sf for a total of 30,420 gpd.” IS/MND, p. 4-93. Converted, this
correlates with an indoor water use rate of 11,103,300 gallons per year (gpy). Ex. B, p. 6. However, only 82,125 gpy were inputted into the model for the
hotel land use. IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 138, Ex. B, p. 6. The explanation provided is “Refer to CalEEMod inputs.” IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 136. This fails
to substantiate the changes or justify a different indoor water use rate than was specified in the IS/MND. Ex. B, p. 7. Thus, the CalEEMod is incorrect and
underestimates the hotel land use’s indoor water use rate.
Further, while the IS/MND provides data on the hotel land use’s indoor water use rate, it fails to provide an indoor water use rate for the Project’s
other proposed land uses. Id. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s water-related operational emissions.
Response
1-17
The commenter incorrectly asserts that the IS/MND relies on incorrect indoor water use rates. Revised Appendix A provides details on the water and
wastewater rates, which are based on the rates identified in Section XVII (b) and (c), which are 0.50 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf) of (total) water
use and 100 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater use (indoor) per room. The CalEEMod model also includes additional water use associated with the
restaurant within the hotel. The changes to the default water and wastewater rates for the hotel are substantially higher (66 percent higher) than the
CalEEMod defaults, which assume 28,168 gallons per year per room (approximately 77 gallons per day per room total). Consequently, the IS/MND provides
a conservative estimate of water and wastewater generation for the proposed project and associated emissions.
Comment
1-18
8. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated change to solid waste generation rates.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project’s solid waste generation rates were manually changed without adequate
justification. IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 138, Ex. B, p. 7. The explanation provided is “Refer to CalEEMod inputs.” IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 136. However,
the IS/MND fails to justify or mention these changes, and can therefore not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
CC 03-03-20
677 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 17
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Response
1-18
The commenter incorrectly asserts that the IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates. Revised Appendix A provides details on the solid waste
generation rate based on the rates for employees identified in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, criterion (d), which is the more conservative of the
two rates included in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, criterion (d). As a result, the CalEEMod run assumes 210.52 tons per year of solid waste
generated by the proposed project while the IS/MND identifies that the proposed project would generate 182.5 tons per year (0.5 tons per day) based on
the CalRecycle disposal rate for hotels. Consequently, the GHG section provides a conservative estimate of emissions from solid waste disposal for the
proposed project.
Comment
1-19
9. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated application of a construction mitigation measure.
Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model includes a 9% reduction of particulate matter emissions as a result of the “Clean Paved
Roads” mitigation measure. IS/MND Revised App. A, pp. 94, 134, Ex. B, p. 8. While the IS/MND mentions sweeping paved roads, it does not justify or
mention the 9% reduction. IS/MND, p. 4-11. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be
relied upon.
Response
1-19
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic construction mitigation measures are required for all projects to reduce construction-
related fugitive dust emissions to less-than-significant levels. One of the mandatory basic construction mitigation measures is removing visible mud or dirt
track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day during construction. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (South Coast AQMD) commissioned the CalEEMod program. The South Coast AQMD provides documentation for emissions control
efficiencies associated with the control measures for fugitive dust, which can be found here: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-
quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/fugitive-dust. As identified in the fugitive dust measures for paved roads, use of
street sweepers only once per month have a PM10 control efficiency of 9 percent. As a result, modeling assumes a conservative control efficiency for daily
street sweeping during construction with implementation of BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures.
Comment
1-20
10. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated application of water-related operational mitigation measures.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project’s emissions were modeled with several unsubstantiated water-related
mitigation measures. IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 129, Ex. B, p. 9. The Project’s operational emissions were modeled including the following water-related
mitigation measures: “Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Toilet,” and “Install Low Flow Shower.”
IS/MND Revised App. A, p. 129. However, the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table fails to mention or provide a justification for the inclusion
of these mitigation measures and the IS/MND fails to address these mitigation measures. As a result, the model cannot be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Response
1-20
The commenter incorrectly asserts that regulatory water conservation features cannot be relied upon for use in the model. The CalEEMod program is based
on water demand in the Pacific Institute’s 2003 Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Because the water demand
rates in CalEEMod were established prior to the adoption of the California Green Building Standards Code (2010) and the State’s Water Efficiency Landscape
Ordinance (WELO) (2010), CalEEMod is not currently programmed to include increases in water efficiency associated with new plumbing fixtures and
CC 03-03-20
678 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 18
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
landscaping under these newly adopted regulations. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD’s guidance (as the agency that created the model), to
account for the reductions in water efficiency with the mandatory requirements of CALGreen and WELO, these water fixture measures are checked to
accurate reflect today’s building requirements.
Comment
1-21
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
SWAPE’s review of the IS/MND and construction health risk assessment (“HRA”) found that the IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated air model
that underestimates the Project’s emissions and completely failed to conduct a quantified HRA for Project operation. Ex. B, pp. 9- 10. SWAPE concluded that
the use of the construction related mitigation measures and the failure to evaluate the operational health risk posed to nearby receptors to the Project is
inappropriate for several reasons.
First, the construction HRA relies on an unsubstantiated air model that underestimates the Project’s emissions as discussed above. As a result, the
IS/MND’s conclusion that, after mitigation, the construction-related health risk to the maximally exposed individual receptor would be approximately 5.1 in
one million cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s significance.
Response
1-21
Please see Responses to Comments 1-11 through 1-20 above; the project’s emissions are accurately reflected in the modeling included in the IS/MND.
Therefore, the IS/MND’s conclusion that, after mitigation, the construction-related risk is below 10 in one million cancer risk is correct.
Comment
1-22
Second, simply stating that the Project “would not result in creation of land uses that would generate substantial concentrations of TACs” does not
justify the omission of an operational HRA. By failing to prepare an operational HRA, the IS/MND is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the
Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.”
OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. The OEHHA guidance document describes the
types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. Id. Once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will operate for a
long period of time. During operation, the Project will generate vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose
nearby sensitive receptors to emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated
for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed
individual resident (MEIR). Id. at 8-6, 8-15. Although the IS/MND did not provide the expected lifetime of the Project, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the
Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, SWAPE states that health risks from Project operation should have also been evaluated in
the IS/MND, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. Ex. B, p. 10.
Response
1-22
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines provide screening criteria to determine when an operational health risk assessment is warranted. Pursuant to the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines, the project is not an industrial/manufacturing project (permitted sources) or a project that generates a substantial number of diesel
trucks, such as a large distribution center or retail center. As described in Section II, Air Quality, criterion (c), examples of projects which generate
substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from vehicle trips are distribution centers with more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks with transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) per day (based on CARB’s 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook). As documented in Response to Comment 1-15, the
CC 03-03-20
679 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 19
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
overwhelming majority of vehicles generated by the project are passenger vehicle trips, and emissions from these sources are not the primary cause of
health risk in the Bay Area. Consequently, hotel projects were screened out under BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines from the need to prepare an operational
health risk assessment because TACs from hotel operations are nominal and would not result in impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Comment
1-23
Third, SWAPE found that the IS/MND failed to sum the cancer risk calculated for each age group. Id. According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess
cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.” “Guidance Manual for preparation
of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4. However,
review of the construction HRA conducted in the IS/MND failed to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s
lifetime. Ex. B, p. 10. This is incorrect and an updated analysis should quantify the Project’s construction and operational health risks and then sum them to
compare to the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id., pp. 10-11, “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017,
available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
Response
1-23
Please see Response to Comment 1-22, above, explaining that, pursuant to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, there are no unacceptable operational health
risks related the proposed hotel project that need to be analyzed further. The health risk analysis in the IS/MND for the construction phase of the project
considers the appropriate exposure duration and age group methodologies as recommended by BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments adopted in March
2015.
Comment
1-24
F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the
Project. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. Ex. B, pp. 11-14. SWAPE used a sensitive receptor distance of 50
meters (the distance to the closest residential receptor) and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA guidance. Id., pp. 11-
13.
SWAPE calculates that the Project’s construction and operation may pose cancer risks to adults, children, and infants of approximately 21, 140,
and 150 in one million, well above the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Id., p. 14. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential
lifetime calculated by SWAPE is 310 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant health risk impact not previously addressed or identified by the
IS/MND. Id. These screening level calculations demonstrate that the Project’s construction and operational diesel particulate matter emissions may result in
a potentially significant health risk impact. SWAPE’s screening-level HRA analysis and results can be found in Exhibit B, pp. 11-14.
Response
1-24
The screening-level operational HRA prepared by the commenter’s scientists (Exhibit B of this Comment Letter) incorrectly correlates exhaust PM10 (coarse
particulate matter) emissions generated by project operational emission sources with diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. The commenter’s
scientists screening-level HRA calculates DPM emissions for diesel-fueled trucks associated with the hotel project. On page 12 of the SWAPE HRA, the diesel-
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emission rate from the operational phase of the project is based on the exhaust PM10 annual emission rate from
CalEEMod annual model runs. However, the exhaust PM10 emissions from CalEEMod do not directly correlate to DPM from operational emission sources.
CC 03-03-20
680 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 20
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
For instance, over 65 percent of operation-generated exhaust PM10 would be from natural gas combustion associated with building energy use. Natural gas
combustion would not generate diesel particulate matter, because diesel fuel is not part of the combustion process. In addition, the predominant mobile
emission source associated with proposed hotel and restaurant land uses would be gasoline-fueled passenger cars, and not diesel-fueled trucks. For these
reasons, the exhaust PM10 emissions from the operational CalEEMod annual output cannot be directly correlated to DPM for the purposes of an HRA.
The health risk analysis provided in the IS/MND utilized a refined air dispersion modeling approach (using AERMOD), whereas a screening-level HRA was
prepared by the commenter’s scientists. BAAQMD’s Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May 2012) recommends a
more refined modeling analysis for projects which may exceed applicable thresholds using a screening analysis. Refined models such as AERMOD require
more site-specific information and yield greater characterization of the project and more representative results. Therefore, the HRA performed by
PlaceWorks’ registered engineer, Steve Bush, and presented in Appendix B of the IS/MND is accurate.
Comment
1-25
G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
The IS/MND concludes that the Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s bright line threshold, and subsequently proposes mitigation
to find that the GHG emissions impact would be less than significant. IS.MND, p. 4-39. The IS/MND also evaluates the Project’s consistency with the CARB
Scoping Plan, the Plan Bay Area 2040, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) to determine that the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Id., p. 4-40. However, SWAPE concludes that this analysis and subsequent less than significant impact conclusion is incorrect for several reasons.
First, the CARB Scoping Plan and the Plan Bay Area cannot be relied upon to determine project significance because they do not qualify as CAPs.
Ex. B, p. 15. When CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) are read in conjunction, they make clear that qualified GHG reduction plans,
also known as CAPs, should require the following features: 1) inventory; 2) establish GHG reduction goals; 3) analyze project types; 4) craft performance
based mitigation measures; and 5) monitoring. Id., pp. 15-16. These CAP features provide the necessary substantial evidence demonstrating a project’s
incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(3). As SWAPE points out, the IS/MND fails to
demonstrate that the plans and policies include these 5 listed requirements to be considered a qualified CAP for the City, leaving an analytical gap showing
that compliance with said plans can be used for a project-level significance determination. Id. At 16.
Second, the Project fails to demonstrate consistency with the Cupertino CAP. SWAPE notes that the CAP fails to provide specific, project-level
measures, and instead provides “community-wide” measures with quantified GHG reduction potentials. Id. Regardless of this, the IS/MND fails to
demonstrate consistency with all of the CAP’s “community-wide” measures and associated GHG reduction potentials. See, id., pp. 16-20.
Response
1-25
The commenter incorrectly asserts the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was used for a project-level significance determination of whether the projects
greenhouse gas emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Consistency with the City of Cupertino CAP was not used a s CEQA significance threshold,
however. Therefore, there is no “gap” in the analysis. As described below, the IS/MND quantified GHG emissions and concluded that significant impacts
would occur under Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, criterion (a), which concerns whether the project would generate significant greenhouse gas
emissions, and concluded that the impact would be less than significant because required mitigation to offset emissions generated by the projectwould be
CC 03-03-20
681 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 21
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
implemented. As further described below, the IS/MND also analyzed whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing for reducing GHG emissions under Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, criterion (b), and determined that it would
be consistent with the applicable State and local plans, which include the City’s CAP.
The analysis under Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, criterion (a) analyzes whether the project would generate a substantial increase in emissions; and
did not assume that any of the GHG reduction plans listed in Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, criterion (b) were qualified plans that would fully
mitigate GHG impacts of the project. As a result, mitigation was proposed to reduce GHG emissions impacts of the project under criterion (a) in order to
achieve the GHG threshold identified under criterion (a). The impact analysis under criterion (b) is separate from the quantitative analysis provided under
criterion (a), and provides a qualitative assessment of consistency with GHG reduction plans applicable to the project. The IS/MND describes the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15138.5 streamlining on pages 4-41 through 4-43, but it does not rely on the streamlining provisions. The CAP does not include specific
project-level measures with which individual projects need to comply. Rather, the CAP includes community wide strategies for the City to implement to
reduce GHG emissions in addition to measures that apply to municipal operations. In addition, while many of the CAP’s citywide measures apply to
residential projects, many of the measures do not apply to the proposed project which is a hotel. Thus, the project consistency with the CAP, as discussed in
the IS/MND on pages 4-42 and 4-43, included a list of citywide the CAP measures that would be applicable to the proposed hotel. The list approach in the
IS/MND has been revised to include this analysis in a matrix format.
The bulleted list and the second paragraph on pages 4-42 and 4-43 of Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, have been revised as follows:
In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it does not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures
contained in the adopted CAP. The adopted GHG reduction measures applicable to the proposed project include the following:
§ Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase resident and building owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building
energy is used.
§ Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7: Implement water conservation policies contained within Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per
capita water reduction by 2020.
§ Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion community-wide through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.
§ Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition
Debris Diversion and Green Building Ordinances.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, energy conservation measures would be used as part of interior lighting for the new building, such as
employing automatic sensors to turn off lights when guests are not present in guest rooms and various glazing treatments on exterior facades. The
project incorporates water conservation features for on-site irrigation. The irrigation water on the site would be dual-sourced recycled water and
CC 03-03-20
682 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 22
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
potable water as available from the LASD. Any lawn areas would use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated as required by
the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation and
requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The project would also comply with CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of
Construction and Demolition Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste Policy. Additionally, the proposed project would include a photovoltaic system that would
offset GHG emissions from electricity generated by the project.
See the revised matrix in the “Revisions to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration” section at the end of this responses to comments memo.
This revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Public Draft IS/MND. As shown above, the City’s CAP measures,
including the measures discussed by the commenter in Exhibit B (i.e., comments from SWAPE) to the commenter’s letter, as well as those listed in the
IS/MND, are not directly applicable to the project because the City is responsible party for implementing all of the measures citywide, not project applicants.
Consequently, the Cupertino CAP consistency analysis provided in the IS/MND adequately described the project’s consistency with the measures that would
apply to non-residential projects when implemented by the City. As demonstrated in the IS/MND and underscored above, the proposed project would not
conflict with or hinder the City’s ability to achieve its GHG reduction targets.
Comment
1-26
H. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Greenhouse Gas Impact.
The IS/MND’s GHG analysis is also flawed because it relies on an incorrect CalEEMod
model (discussed above), and cannot assume that the implementation of one mitigation measure
would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to a less than significant level without quantifying
impacts. SWAPE ran an updated GHG analysis using the updated CalEEMod output files and
comparing the total Project’s GHG emissions, including construction emissions and operational
emissions, to the BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year and found that the
Project’s GHG emissions exceed the threshold.
CC 03-03-20
683 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 23
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
When accurately modeled, SWAPE determined that the Project’s GHG emissions would be
approximately 2,283 MT CO2e/year. Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Since this exceeds the BAAQMD’s 1,100 MT
CO2e/year threshold, a Tier 4 analysis is warranted. Id., p. 22. SWAPE divided the Project’s GHG
emissions by the service population value of 78 people to find that the Project would emit
approximately 29.3 MT CO2e/SP/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD 2030 substantial progress
threshold of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year. Id. When accurately analyzed, the Project’s total GHG
emissions exceeds the “Substantial Progress” efficiency threshold for 2030, thus resulting in a
significant impact not previously assessed or identified in the IS/MND. Id.
SWAPE concludes that due to these significant impacts and the failure of the IS/MND to analyze all
potential GHG emission impacts, an updated GHG analysis should be prepared in a Project-specific
EIR and additional mitigation measures should be incorporated into the Project. Id.
Response
1-26
Please see Responses to Comments 1-11 through 1-20 above; the project’s emissions are accurately reflected in the modeling included in the IS/MND.
Furthermore, the efficiency-based metric cited by the commenter was not used in the GHG emissions analysis because there is no substantial evidence to
connect the state’s GHG emissions inventory to the project inventory. As a result, BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e identified in the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines is used as a de minimus threshold by the City. This is consistent with other Air Districts throughout California, such as South Coast AQMD (3,000
MTCO2e); Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (1,100 MTCO2e); San Luis Obispo APCD (1,150 MTCO2e); and the 900 MTCO2e identified by the California Air
Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) in their 2008 Guidance, CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Comment
1-27
I. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s Noise Impacts.
The comment of noise expert Derek Watry is attached as Exhibit D. Mr. Watry has identified several issues with the IS/MND for the Project. His
concerns are summarized below.
Response
1-27
The commenter incorrectly asserts that IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate the noise impacts of the proposed project. Responses to this
assertion are provided in the responses to comments that follow. Please see Responses to Comments 1-28 through 1-30 below.
Comment
1-28
1. The MND fails to adequately evaluate construction noise levels.
Mr. Watry reviewed the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s noise impacts, and concludes that the IS/MND
improperly analyzed construction noise levels. Mr. Watry concludes that analyzed properly, construction noise levels during the five stages of the Project
construction would create a significant noise impact. Ex. D, p. 2.
CC 03-03-20
684 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 24
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
The Cupertino Municipal Code (“CMC”) section 10.48.053 sets the quantitative requirements for construction noise as: “. . . construction activities
[may] not exceed 80 dBA at the nearest affected property or individual equipment items do not exceed 87 dBA at 25 feet. Only one of these two criteria
must be met.” The IS/MND uses the first of these two options and presents estimates of construction noise at the two nearest property lines shared with
noise-sensitive receptors. However, as Mr. Watry points out, “the [IS/MND] treats the 80 dBA limit as a limit for the average noise level.” Ex. D, p.1. There is
no indication in CMC section 10.48.053 that the code intended this limit to be for the average noise level limit, and “it is more likely that the 80 dBA limit is
intended to be a maximum for noise levels from the construction activities.” Id.
Mr. Watry also noted that the IS/MND uses the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model to determine the data output
for the Project’s noise levels. However, the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model shows the maximum noise levels for
construction phases at a distance of 200 feet while the construction equipment used at the Project site will be closer than 200 feet to the Cupertino Hotel
property line. Id., p. 2. Mr. Watry used the attenuation with distance factor used in the IS/MND and the closest approach point to the Cupertino Hotel
property line to calculate the maximum noise levels of the Project’s construction phases, shown below:
Id. The table also shows the distance of the loudest piece of equipment in each phase will need to be from the property to produce a maximum noise level
of 80 dBA. As Mr. Watry notes, “[f]or the demolition and grading phases, the distance is nearly half the width of the project site indicating that the 80 dBA
limit will be exceeded half of the time during these phases.”
Mr. Watry concludes that the City’s misinterpretation of the CMC led to an inadequate noise impact analysis, and when properly analyzed the
Project’s noise levels during five stages of construction will create a significant noise impact. An EIR must therefore be prepared.
Response
1-28
The commenter’s interpretation of the CMC is based on assumptions of what is and what isn’t “likely.” Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an
environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved to the discretion of the Lead Agency based on substantial evidence in the record as a
whole. The analysis in the IS/MND is based on scientific and factual data, which has been reviewed by the Lead Agency and reflects its independent
judgment and conclusions. Historically, the use of the Leq noise level metric for environmental review in the City of Cupertino has been prevalent, and the
CC 03-03-20
685 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 25
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
certified The Forum Senior Community Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017052037) and the approved Village Hotel IS/MND (State Clearinghouse No.
2018112025) used 80 dBA Leq as a threshold to analyze temporary construction noise impacts. Furthermore, use of 80 dBA Leq is consistent with guidance
from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which recommends a daytime construction noise limit of 80 dBA Leq(8 hr) for residential uses (Federal
Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Section 7, Noise and Vibration During Construction). This is the Leq
noise level over an eight-hour period, which is comparable to a typical construction workday.
It should be noted that the FTA recommends a higher limit of 85 dBA Leq(8 hr) for commercial uses (such as the Cupertino Hotel to the south). The noise
analysis in the IS/MND is also conservative in that, while construction noise is analyzed at the Cupertino Hotel property line to the south, there is over 50
feet of parking lot beyond the property line before reaching the hotel itself. The only active outdoor use area at the Cupertino Hotel is the courtyard/pool in
the center of that site, which would be substantially shielded by the Cupertino Hotel building.
As the commenter notes, calculating the average noise level based on the center of the project site is “reasonable because the equipment will, in the long-
term, move all around the site and will, on average, be in the center.” Exactly as the commenter notes, and as explained in the IS/MND noise analysis on
Page 4-59, “noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at
spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site) to the property line of the nearest receptors. Although
construction may occur across the entire phase area, the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average
construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors.” This would be true of the loudest phases such as site preparation, grading, and
demolition (including demolition of existing pavement) in that equipment would continually be moving around the project site. It should be noted that the
noise analysis in the IS/MND was conservative in that, “project-related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable
construction equipment” [italics added for emphasis]. In reality, certain pieces of equipment during a given phase may operate during a portion of the
workday and then remain off while other equipment does work.
Comment
1-29
2. The MND fails to adequately mitigate the operational noise impacts.
The IS/MND concludes that the Project’s operational noise impacts would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measure NOISE-2 would make
that impact less than significant. IS/MND, p. 4-63. However, Mitigation Measure NOISE-2 does not provide a substantive analysis that feasible mitigation is
possible. Ex. D, p. 3. Instead, it simply states that a qualified acoustician will, at some point in the future, determine specific measures to reduce noise levels.
CEQA prohibits deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses
“‘meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of
Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be
feasible”). A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of
impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
CC 03-03-20
686 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 26
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water
was available). This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being
swept under the rug.” Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.
Mr. Watry points out that the IS/MND attempts to minimize operational noise levels from the generator including a Level II sound enclosure, but
still found that the noise levels exceed the adopted criteria. Ex. D, p. 3. Mr. Watry concludes that this “provides more impetus for additional analysis to
demonstrate that feasible mitigation is possible or to determine that the impact is significant.” Id.
Response
1-29
An emergency back-up generator is no longer proposed as part of the project. Following the second paragraph under subsection “Project-Related
Operational Noise, Stationary Noise,” the text has been revised as follow:
In addition, an emergency backup generator is proposed on the roof inside an enclosure. It is anticipated that the generator would be power rated at
275 kilowatt (kW) and would only be used during an emergency power outage or for routine testing (up to 50 hours per year per BAAQMD
regulations). A typical 275 kW generator with a weatherproof enclosure would produce noise levels of approximately 84 dBA at a distance of 23 feet.
With a Level II sound attenuation enclosure, a typical 275 kW generator would produce noise levels of approximately 75 dBA at a distance of 23 feet.
The proposed six-foot metal rooftop panel, shown in Figure 3-8, would provide additional shielding, as might the roof itself depending upon the final
design. However, to provide a conservative assessment of operational noise impacts, these project features were not factored into the estimated
noise level at nearby receptors since the height of the exhaust/enclosure is unknown at this time. At the nearest non-residential receptor (commercial
uses to the west), noise levels would be reduced to approximately 76 dBA with a weatherproof enclosure and 67 dBA with a Level II sound enclosure.
In both cases, this would potentially exceed the CMC daytime noise limit of 65 dBA. The commercial uses to the west would not be any more sensitive
during nighttime hours than daytime hours. At the nearest residential receptors (Aviare Apartments 150 feet to the east), noise levels would be
reduced to approximately 65 dBA with a weatherproof enclosure and 56 dBA with a Level II sound enclosure. In both cases, this would potentially
exceed the CMC nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA for residential receptors. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2, project-related operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project during the operation phase that would be in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in
other applicable local, State, or federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the
Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55
dBA at non-residential sensitive uses (i.e., the Cupertino Hotel) during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant shall
be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise
to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses
to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
CC 03-03-20
687 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 27
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
§ Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
§ Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise
source and the nearest receptors;
§ Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
This revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Public Draft IS/MND.
Comment
1-30
3. The IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate traffic noise levels.
For the traffic noise analysis, the IS/MND uses a relative, “audible” threshold of significance and “only ‘audible’ changes in noise levels at sensitive
receptor locations (i.e., 3 dBA or more) are considered potentially significant.” IS/MND, p. 4-58. Mr. Watry states that “[t]he fundamental problem with
using a relative threshold of significance, e.g., a change of 3 dBA or greater, is that, over time, there will effectively be no limit.” Ex. D, p. 3. In order to keep
noise levels from increasing continually without limit over time, Mr. Watry concludes that absolute criteria should be used as well. Id., p. 4.
For this project, an appropriate source for absolute criteria is the Cupertino General Plan – Community Vision 2015-2040. Chapter 7, Health and
Safety Element, contains Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, cast in terms of either the Day-Night Equivalent Level (Ldn) or the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both 24-hour weighted average noise levels. [General Plan, Figure HS-8]. For various types of land uses, Figure
HS-8 indicates if a particular noise exposure is “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, or “clearly unacceptable”. A very
reasonable, absolute threshold of significance would be if the noise level changed from one classification to another, regardless of the amount of the
increase.
Id.
Mr. Watry’s absolute criteria analysis would necessarily be based on measurements of the existing noise environment around the Project site,
which the IS/MND did not do in its noise analysis.
Response
1-30
The commenter incorrectly asserts that, in addition to the relative traffic noise increase threshold of 3 dBA, the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments standards from the Cupertino General Plan should be used and that, if the noise level changed from one classification to another, an absolute
threshold should be used, i.e., from conditionally acceptable to normally unacceptable. As explained in the Chapter 7, Health and Safety (HS) Element of the
General Plan on page HS-22, “noise compatibility may be achieved by avoiding the location of conflicting land uses adjacent to one another.” The proposed
project is a hotel proposed adjacent to another hotel, however, which are compatible land uses. As discussed in the IS/MND noise analysis on page 4.-63
(details were included in Appendix C), the permanent noise level increase due to the proposed project was estimated to be 0.1 dBA on study roadway
segments. This increase is negligible in an outdoor environment in terms of community noise exposure.
CC 03-03-20
688 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 28
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
1-31
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should De Anza Hotel Project be prepared, and the draft EIR
should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.
Response
1-31
The comment is noted. Responses to this assertion are provided in the Responses to Comment 1-7 through 1-30. The responses summarize the main points
of disagreement among the commenter and the experts hired by the commenter. In some instances the responses to comments include insignificant
modifications, amplifications, and clarifications to the Public Review Draft IS/MND, which are shown in the Draft IS/MND, and demonstrate that the MND is
the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project, and that the preparation of an EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
(see CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(d)).
Comment
1-32
Exhibit A: This is a memo from Francis J. Offermann at Indoor Environmental Engineering regarding Indoor Air Quality analysis of the De Anza Hotel.
Response
1-32
Please see Response to Comment 1-7 above.
Comment
1-33
Exhibit B: This is a memo from Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld at SWAPE regarding the Air Quality, Health Risks, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
analysis of the De Anza Hotel project.
Response
1-33
Please see Responses to Comments 1-9 to 1-26 above.
Comment
1-34
Exhibit C: This is a memo from Wilson Ihrig at Acoustics, Noise & Vibration regarding the Noise analysis of the De Anza Hotel project.
Response
1-34
Please see Responses to Comments 1-27 to 1-30 above.
Comment
1-35
Exhibit D: This is a letter, dated August 1, 2019 to the City of Cupertino regarding CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for the Project known as De Anza
Hotel
Response
1-35
Please see Response to Comment 1-2 above.
2. Michael Goolsby, Better Neighborhoods, Inc.
Comment
2-1
This letter is submitted by Better Neighborhoods as a request that the City Council deny approval of the Project and remand consideration of the Project to
the Planning Commission for further study and analysis to comply with the requirements of CEQA.
CC 03-03-20
689 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 29
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Better Neighborhoods is an organization established to help people have a voice in local development decisions as prominent as that of planners and
developers. Our aim is to encourage smart growth consistent with the needs of the community while protecting the natural environment and places of
historic and aesthetic significance, supporting California’s need for affordable housing and balancing the desire for growth with the need for features that
make cities livable.
Response
2-1
The comment is noted.
Comment
2-2
The proposed Project is a seven-story, 156-room hotel with rooftop bar and lounge and related parking and other facilities, called the De Anza Hotel Project
(the “Project”).
The Planning Commission considered and approved the Project. In doing so they reviewed and approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(the “MND”). Better Neighborhoods submitted a comment letter regarding several aspects of the MND. The staff submitted to the Planning Commission a
reply memorandum prepared by Placeworks, dated December 5, 2019.
The Placeworks memorandum (the “Response Memo”) purports to address all of the comments raised by Better Neighborhoods. However, most of the
comments by Placeworks in the memorandum are either dismissive of the comments we have made, or are evasive or incorrect responses, none of which
address the fundamental CEQA issues raised by Better Neighborhoods.
Response
2-2
The commenter’s opinion is noted.
Comment
2-3
We write this letter to the City Council in the hopes of explaining more fully our concerns with the inadequate CEQA analysis undertaken for the proposed
Project.
In the prior comment letter submitted to the Planning Commission and in this letter, Better Neighborhoods provides substantial evidence for this
administrative record that supports a fair argument that the proposed Project might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered.
Accordingly, the City Council should deny the Project approval and remand the Project to the Planning Commission for further and more complete CEQA
review.
Response
2-3
The comment is noted. Please see Responses to Comments 2-4 to 2-16.
CC 03-03-20
690 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 30
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
2-4
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The subject property very likely has an underground storage tank (“UST”) that contains waste oil. In the MND, the Applicant admits that the geophysical
survey was performed only “within accessible areas of the site”. A substantial surface area of the site was ignored, and no borings were performed, due to
limited accessibility. This is discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on page 4-44 and page 4-47 of the MND. As a result of this limited
investigation, the applicant has not found the location of the UST.
Nonetheless, the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) records show that the UST was installed at the project site in 1973. There is no record of the UST
removal. Therefore, one can and should conclude that a UST remains buried somewhere on the site.
The Response Memo attempts to avoid this issue by claiming that the chances of finding the UST are low. It continues by stating that even if the UST is
discovered during grading of the site, the developer will simply comply with California law and sample the soil, remove the tank, clean up any toxins, and
proceed with the project.
We know that the project will have four levels of subterranean parking. The massive hole that must be created to allow for this underground garage is
certain to come upon the UST. Before the digging begins, we must understand the nature and extent of the contamination.
There is substantial evidence that the UST exists now. CEQA does not allow the City to defer the nature, type and specification of a mitigation measure. In
this case, if the UST has leaked and contaminated surrounding soil and possibly groundwater, the whole cleanup process will be an unknown new project.
For this reason, the City should require as much additional boring and testing as may be required until the UST is identified. Then, the soils samples should
be taken to confirm whether or not contamination has occurred. Then, when the facts are known, the City can require an appropriate mitigation measure.
Response
2-4
The commenter correctly states that the site could contain a 200-gallon waste oil UST, as discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on
page 4-44 and page 4-47 of the IS/MND. The commenter incorrectly asserts that the IS/MND includes deferred mitigation. Although CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4 prohibits the formulation of mitigation measures to be deferred until some future time, the IS/MND concluded that the impacts due to
potential discovery of an underground storage tank during construction would be less than significant, because the project would comply with mandatory
regulations applicable to removal and closure of underground storage tanks and remediation of any associated contamination. As stated in the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result
in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the
specified performance standards.
CC 03-03-20
691 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 31
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
As described in the IS/MND on page 4-44, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated August 8, 2018 was prepared for the project site by AEI
Consultants (See Appendix E of the IS/MND). 2 The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
associated with the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in the vicinity of the project site. Note that the Phase I ESA also evaluated
Controlled RECs, which are locations where the past release of hazardous materials has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls, and Historical
RECs, which are also satisfactorily addressed but are not subject to any required controls.
As described in the IS/MND, the site supported agricultural land uses between 1939 to 1968.
The existing building was built in 1971 and 1972 and the tank was installed in 1973. Therefore,
the UST, if still underground, has been there for 47 years. As described in the IS/MND, the
possibility that the UST could still be on the site remains because there are no records of the
tank being removed (see page 4-47 of the IS/MND). For this very reason, as part of the Phase II
ESA, ground penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted around the “accessible areas,” which are
the perimeter areas around the building structure. These areas are described as accessible
because the GPR cannot be performed where the building is located. The image of the
accessible area is shown here in the red boxes surrounding the existing building and in
Appendix B of the Phase II ESA.
2 Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI), 2018, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil & Vapor Sampling Results, 10931 North De Anza
Boulevard, Cupertino, California. October 26, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
692 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 32
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
In addition to the GPR, the Phase II ESA included seven soil boring samples and two soil vapor
samplings of which six were in the automobile maintenance bays inside the existing building and one
was at the ground surface. The images of the soil boring locations is shown on Figure 2 in the Phase II
ESA and shown here.
The Phase II ESA determined that very low detectable concentrations of diesel, motor oil, Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contaminants were reported in the
seven soil borings. These soil concentrations were determined to be below the San Francisco Regional
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The soil vapor samplings
detected low levels of VOCs that are also below the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Tier 1 ESLs for soil gas.
3,4
As previously described in the prior Response to Comment Memo for the Planning Commission, it is
because of the relatively small size (approximately 2 feet by 4 feet) of the 200-gallon waste oil UST
there remains the remote possibility that the geophysical survey (or GPR) could have missed the single
UST that Environmental Data Resources (EDR) records show was installed at the project site in 1973
but has no record of its removal.
The removal of a UST in the State of California is a routine and regulated procedure. As described in the IS/MND, if a UST is encountered during site grading
and excavation activities, it would be required to be removed in accordance with the existing standards and regulations of, and oversight by, the Santa Clara
County Fire District, based on compliance authority granted through the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Underground Tank
3 Tier 1 ESLs are used as a general screening guide to determine whether additional investigation, remedial actions, or risk
assessment may be required. The Tier 1 ESLs are conservative, and are based on the lowest exposure pathway of concern, whether it is direct human exposure in
residential land use, construction worker exposure, potential leaching of contaminants to shallow groundwater, open space terrestrial habitat, or other exposure
pathways.
4 Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI), 2018, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil & Vapor Sampling Results, 10931 North De Anza
Boulevard, Cupertino, California. October 26, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
693 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 33
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Regulations. Under these regulations, if a UST is encountered then soil samples from areas where UST is removed or where soil contamination is suspected
would be required to be analyzed for hydrocarbons including gasoline and diesel in accordance with procedures set forth by the Santa Clara County Fire
District. If hydrocarbons are identified in the soil, the appropriate response/remedial measures would be required to be implemented as directed by the
Santa Clara County Fire District with support review from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board until all specified requirements are
satisfied and a Tank Closure Letter is issued. Compliance requirements pertaining to the removal/closure of storage tanks are set forth in California Health
and Safety Code, Sections 25280 through 25299. Although future soil sampling could be required if a UST is encountered, as explained above soil samples
have already been collected and tested, all samples were tested and found to be below the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Tier 1
Environmental Screening Levels and Soil Gas Environmental Screening Levels.
Comment
2-5
General Plan Amendment
The Project site, a 1.29-acre parcel at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, is currently developed with a one-story Goodyear Auto Service Center. The site is
now designated under the General Plan as Commercial/Residential, General Commercial (CG) with special development regulations (rg), referred to as CG-
rg.
This Project is in conflict with the General Plan. Simply Amending the General Plan to accommodate this Project is improper.
The Vision for the Homestead Special Area is “The Homestead Villa neighborhood is largely developed and is not anticipated to change in character.”
Response
2-5
As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, page 3-9 of the IS/MND, the General Plan land use designation is Commercial/Residential, which allows
primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two. The Zoning District for the project site is General
Commercial (GC), with special development regulations (rg), together referred to as CG-rg. As described in Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section
19.60.010, the CG zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city to establish retailing, offices, and
service establishments that ensure the maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The special development regulation applies to three
parcels in the city. Ordinance 436 requires a driveway equal to the width of three cars (e.g., three 10-foot travel lanes would equal a 30-foot driveway) to
serve the project site and Homestead Shopping Center.5 Hotel uses are allowed in the CG-rg Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit issued by the
Planning Commission pursuant to CMC Section 19.60.030.6 The adopted General Plan Amendment Authorization resolution allows the project applicant to
apply for a General Plan Amendment to increase the hotel development allocation on the site;7 therefore, the project must be reviewed and approved by
5 City of Cupertino Ordinance 436 (not codified).
6 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.030, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses.
Table 19.60.030: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning Districts.
7 City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Authorization Number 2018-01, Resolution Number 19-010, Passed and Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 15, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
694 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 34
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
the City Council. With the approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission, and a General Plan Amendment Authorization from City
Council, the proposed project would be in consistent with the General Plan.
As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, page 3-8 of the IS/MND, the Homestead Special Area includes residential, commercial, office and hotel uses
along Homestead Road, between I-280 and the Sunnyvale city limit (see Chapter 2, Planning Areas (PA), on page PA-12). Additionally, the North De Anza
Gateway, which is within the Homestead Special Area, includes one other hotel (Cupertino Hotel). According to the General Plan, the Homestead Special
Area will continue to be a predominantly mixed-use retail commercial area with residential uses and neighborhood centers providing services to local
residents.8 Therefore, the proposed hotel project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character.
Comment
2-6
This General Plan Amendment is the worst sort of “spot zoning.” The staff report clearly states that “It should be noted that the General Plan amendments
would only apply to the proposed hotel.” In Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, the court of appeal concluded that spot zoning can be found
where an isolated parcel is zoned less restrictively than surrounding property. This project is exactly this sort of impermissible spot zoning. The developer
has not suggested, and there is no reason why this Project should justify a General Plan Amendment. There is no substantial public need for this hotel here,
at this location in the City and this hotel project certainly is not in the public interest.
Response
2-6
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the environmental review. No further response is required.
Comment
2-7
Also, the City should not attempt to allocate hotel rooms across Special Areas within the General Plan and change the height limitations within this
Homestead Special Area – unless the City conducts an exhaustive and thoughtful analysis of what the future will likely bring for development across the City
if this Project is approved. There are many, many unintended consequences of this General Plan Amendment. For example, if this Project is approved, there
will be increased pressure and demand to densify properties near this Project site, and the City will have set a precedent with this particular approval, thus
making it much more likely that additional General Plan Amendments will be approved for intense uses and for taller and more prominent buildings – thus
further changing the essential character of this area of the City. Also, if hotel rooms are moved out of other Special Areas and placed into the Homestead
area, the City has done nothing more that create pressure for future plan amendment requests in the other Special Areas that are now losing allocated
hotel rooms.
Response
2-7
The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses to Comments 2-5 and 2-8. The type of development proposed is contemplated in the General
Plan.
8 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, page LU-61.
CC 03-03-20
695 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 35
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Comment
2-8
The General Plan was approved after a very long and information rich process. Now, the CG zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding
development to establish retail, office and services “that ensure the maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas.” This Project is directly
contradictory to this. The City should not be whimsical to alter the General Plan just to accommodate one developer’s desire to build a hotel where it does
not belong.
Response
2-8
The commenter’s opinion is noted. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, page 3-9 of the IS/MND, the project site is within the General Commercial
(CG) with special development regulations (rg) land use designation for the site (together referred to as CG-rg).9 Hotel uses are allowed in the CG-rg Zoning
District with a Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission pursuant to CMC Section 19.60.030.10 Please see Response to Comment 2-5.
Comment
2-9
Compatibility with the General Plan
The MND fails to analyze and explain why this hotel Project should be approved, notwithstanding all of the many inconsistencies with the General Plan.
Staff reports that “Staff has evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendments and concludes that based on the net positive fiscal impacts of the project
(see Attachment 7) and minimal environmental impacts of the project, the proposed amendment supports several of the City’s other General Plan goals
including:…” However, staff fails entirely to comply with CEQA and identify, analyze and explain all of inconsitiencies that the Project creates with the
General Plan. The MND is practically silent on all of the many inconsistencies between this Project and the General Plan.
There are many, many examples of this, but just a few are instructive:
First, Page PA-3 of the General Plan, regarding Special Areas, states that “[The Special Areas] should be enhanced with more pedestrian, bicycle and transit
facilities; supported by focused development standards.” This Project does the opposite, including ignoring the development standards that have been
developed for this area.
Second, Page LU-12 of the General Plan (LU-1.3.1: Commercial and Residential Uses), regarding Land Use Allocations, states that “All mixed-use areas with
commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component.”. The Staff was a bit disingenuous when they refer to the compatibility of the Project with
Goal LU-1.3 – that encourages mixed use areas in certain circumstances. However, the specific strategies for achieving this goal seem to preclude putting a
hotel in the middle of this residential area.
9 City of Cupertino Ordinance 436 (not codified).
10 The City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.030, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses.
Table 19.60.030: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning Districts.
CC 03-03-20
696 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 36
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
For this reason alone, the MND fails to comply with CEQA. The City should deny the approvals of this Project and have the CEQA document updated to
explore the General Plan inconsistencies. In fact, Better Neighborhoods believes that CEQA requires a full environmental impact report to be completed if
the General Plan is to be amended.
We urge the City to deny the approvals and require that a full environmental impact report be created, so that the requirements of CEQA can be met for a
General Plan Amendment.
Response
2-9
As stated in Section X, Land Use and Planning, of the IS/MND on page 4-56, a CEQA land use impact would occur if the project would cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation that was “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.” (Emphasis added.) As demonstrated in the IS/MND, the proposed project was found to have no significant effects on the
environment, , because any such impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, no conflict with any land
use plan, policy or regulation that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would occur. Please see Responses to
Comments 2-5 and 2-8 regarding consistency of the project with the General Plan.
Comment
2-10
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IN our prior letter, Better Neighborhoods raises several questions about the GHG analysis in the MND. The Response Memo attempts to respond to all of
these comments, but does so inadequately. First, we think the GHG analysis does not take into account all of the sensitive receptors that will surround the
Project. The City acknowledges that prior to mitigation, there will be construction air quality impacts. The Response Memo sates that causing the large
construction equipment to use heavy duty air filters should bring the total GHG impacts to a level of less than significant. We would like to see the
arithmetic of how this was confirmed. Also, does this merely create a smeared average of GHG toxins, but in fact result in some nearby sensitive receptors
actually receiving a large dose of the bad gases?
Response
2-10
GHG emissions generated by the project would contribute to cumulative world-wide CO2 concentrations and climate change impacts. This is a global impact,
not a local impact. There are no ambient air quality standards for GHGs. While GHG emissions are generated locally, the effects of such emissions are global
in nature. As a result, there are no localized impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the project from project-related GHG emissions. The IS/MND did not
identify any GHG impacts from the construction phase of the project and no mitigation measures for construction-related GHGs were identified. The air
filters described by the commenter relate to emissions other than GHG. Section II, Air Quality of the IS/MND identifies potentially significant localized
impacts from construction emissions of diesel particulate matter, and requires use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter
(DPF) to reduce the concentrations of diesel particulate matter. The results of the emissions modeling are included in Revised Appendix A (CalEEMod runs)
and Appendix B (Health Risk Assessment) in the IS/MND.
Comment
2-11
Also, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 for buying GHG “credits” or “offsets” is not a proper mitigation measure. Even though the local air quality board may allow
it, in fact this does nothing for the neighbors that will be harmed by the bad GHG that the Project creates. We urge the City to reject GHG offset credits, and
CC 03-03-20
697 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 37
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
instead require the developer to actually reduce the GHG emissions – not simply pay to pretend they are not harmful. Al Gore may buy offsets so that he
can fly in a private jet with a clear conscience, but this is not a proper use of the City’s power to protect its citizens.
Response
2-11
See response to Comment 2-10 above. There are no localized impacts to sensitive receptors or others in the vicinity of the project due to project-related
GHG emissions. Because the project’s GHG emissions impacts are a result of contribution to global concentrations of CO2e emission, use of carbon offsets to
reduce emissions would mitigate the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact. It is noted that use of carbon offsets to mitigate GHG emissions is
done after applying all onsite measures to reduce emissions. As part of the project design, the applicant is constructing buildings to achieve the 2019
Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and built to achieve LEED Silver; including photo voltaic (PV) cells for onsite electricity production, reducing
landscape water use through drought-resistant plants and trees, and providing electric vehicle (EV) charging parking spaces in order to support the future
transition to zero electric vehicle (ZEV) cars. Because the City is part of a Community Choice Aggregate (CCA) provided through the Silicon Valley Clean
Energy (SVCE), GHG emissions from building energy represent less than 25 percent of the project’s energy, and these emissions are primary from natural
gas use. The vast majority (65 percent) of project emissions are from transportation emissions, which the City does not have jurisdictional control over.
Consequently, use of carbon offsets is a way to reduce emissions beyond what can be done on an individual project site (including from the transportation
sector) in order to minimize the project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impact.
Comment
2-12
Noise and Light Nuisance
The Response Memo indicates that the noise study contemplated the decibel impact of multiple human conversations from the roof top bar.
Better Neighborhoods primary noise concern about the rooftop bar relates to large events and amplified sound. We require that to protect the surrounding
sensitive receptors, the Hotel Project should include a condition of approval that prohibits amplified sound (speakers, music, megaphones, etc.) entirely.
Also, it should prohibit more than a certain number of persons on the rooftop at one time, based on the cumulative noise levels that could be created by a
crowd.
Response
2-12
Large events with amplified sound such as concerts are not proposed at the rooftop bar. Noise from patrons of the rooftop bar would be shielded by the
proposed metal panel screen wall shown in the rooftop plan drawings. Furthermore, the rooftop bar would be required to comply with the exterior noise
standards contained in the CMC.
Comment
2-13
In addition to the Noise issue, there is no analysis of light and glare impacts that will be created when events occur on the bar rooftop area. We urge the
City to deny the approvals, and require a full analysis of all lighting fixtures, glare and colored, blinking or other lighting that will be visible from surrounding
properties.
We also require that to protect the surrounding sensitive receptors, the Hotel Project should include a condition of approval that prohibits any bright lights,
strobe lights, colored lighting or other obnoxious use of light – if it can be seen from the surrounding neighborhood.
CC 03-03-20
698 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 38
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Response
2-13
As described in Section 3, Project Description, page 3-23 and Section 4.I, Aesthetics, page 4-6 of the IS/MND, the source, intensity, and type of exterior
lighting for the project site would be typical for becoming orientated (i.e., getting your bearings in the dark) and safety needs. All on-site lighting would be
low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare. There would be no up-lighting on the building exterior. The commenter’s suggestion will be
forwarded to the decision-makers for consideration as a condition of approval.
Comment
2-14
Light, Glare and Shadow
Better Neighborhoods previously asked for a shadow study. The Response Memo states that there are no thresholds of significance, and that shadow
studies are only conducted for impacts on public spaces. This is not correct.
If there is no threshold of significance, then the City is obligated to use one that is otherwise applicable, and possibly from another city.
The shadow impact we are concerned with is the shadow this overly tall building will throw onto surrounding residential uses. Please complete a shadow
study to show that nearby residences will not use the reasonable use of their front yards and back yards – especially during the summer months. We can
recommend the thresholds of significance established by the City of Los Angeles for shade and shadow impacts on residential properties.
Response
2-14
Shadow studies are most commonly prepared to determine if a project would result in substantial effects to outdoor recreation facilities or other public
areas. There are no such areas adjacent to the project site.
Comment
2-15
Development Agreement
The City intends to enter into a Development Agreement with the applicant. The developer will obtain substantial benefits under this agreement – not the
least of which is a General Plan Amendment that rezones their property and allows for this dense and incompatible project.
The only significant consideration provided by the applicant is a one-time $500,000 Community Amenity Funding payment. In the context of a project that
will cost perhaps $15 million or $20 million to complete, this fee is a paltry sum. Many cities negotiate Development Agreements that result in much more
favorable benefits for the City. The City and we citizens are entitled to receive park fees, traffic mitigation fees, school fees and other benefits – that would
justify the substantial value being transferred to this developer.
We urge the City Council to deny this Development Agreement and return the negotiation to the City Manager and the Planning Commission to come up
with a Development Agreement that is not a naked charity gift to this developer.
Response
2-15
This is a comment on the project, not on the adequacy of the environmental review. The project applicant would be responsible for the payment of all
applicable developer impact fees imposed by the City and public services providers that ensure each developer pays for their fair-share contribution
towards any necessary improvements as a result of their project.
Comment
2-16
This letter provides substantial evidence for this administrative record that supports a fair argument that the proposed Project might have a significant
environmental impact not previously considered. Accordingly, the City Council should deny the Project approval and remand the Project to the Planning
Commission for further and more complete CEQA review.
CC 03-03-20
699 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 39
TABLE 1 RESPONSES TO LATE COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Number Comment/Response
Response
2-16
The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please also refer to responses to Comments #1 through #15.
CC 03-03-20
700 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 40
REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following text revisions do not require any “substantial revisions” to the IS/MND as defined in the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The following revisions to the text of the IS/MND merely clarify,
amplify, or make insignificant modifictions to the IS/MND and do not affect any conclusions or
significance determinations provided in the Public Draft IS/MND.
Chapter 3 Project Description
Changes to the project building parameters have been revised to reflect the most recent site plans and
to correct a rounding error.
The second sentence in the first paragraph under subheading “Construction” on page 3-25 of Chapter
3, Project Description, has been revised as follows:
According to the most recent site plans submitted for the project dated April 19, 2019, the
Pproject construction would result in a approximately 129,000130,716-square-foot hotel
building, 88,00095,205-square-foot subterranean garage, and 18,00019,163-square-foot
driveway and surface parking.
The third sentence in the third paragraph under subheading “Demolition and Site Preparation” on page 3-25 of
Chapter 3, Project Description has been revised as follows:
The proposed project would require up to 72,000 71,054 cubic yards of cut.
Section VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section has been reformatted from a list followed by a paragraph to a matrix style.
The bulleted list and the second paragraph on pages 4-42 and 4-43 of Section VII, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, has been revised as follows:
In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it
does not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP.
Project consistency with tThe adopted GHG reduction measures applicable to the proposed
project include the following:
§ Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis: Increase resident and building
owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how, when, and where building energy is used.
§ Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7: Implement water conservation policies contained within
Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan to achieve 20 percent per capita water
reduction by 2020.
CC 03-03-20
701 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 41
§ Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal: Maximize solid waste diversion community-wide
through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.
§ Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Program: Continue to
enforce diversion requirements in City’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and
Green Building Ordinances.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, energy conservation measures would be used
as part of interior lighting for the new building, such as employing automatic sensors to turn
off lights when guests are not present in guest rooms and various glazing treatments on
exterior facades. The project incorporates water conservation features for on-site irrigation.
The irrigation water on the site would be dual-sourced recycled water and potable water as
available from the LASD. Any lawn areas would use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape
zones would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses
would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation
and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The project would
also comply with CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition
Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste Policy. Additionally, the proposed project would include a
photovoltaic system that would offset GHG emissions from electricity generated by the
project.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix
Measure Consistency
Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis
Increase resident and building
owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how,
when, and where building energy is used.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 850 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
This measure is not relevant because the proposed project
receives energy through Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)
and therefore utilizes renewable energy for the building.
Additionally, the project includes solar photovoltaic system
cells and other energy efficiency design features, pursuant to
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, energy
conservation measures would be used as part of interior
lighting for the new building, such as employing automatic
sensors to turn off lights when guests are not present in guest
rooms and various glazing treatments on exterior facades. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure C-E-2 Retrofit Financing
Promote existing and support development of new
private financing options for home and commercial
building retrofits and renewable energy
development.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 10,525 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The project proposes a new building that would comply with
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen,
at minimum, in addition to being designed to achieve either a
LEED Silver rating pursuant to CMC Chapter 16.58, Section
16.58.220, Table 101.10, as stated on pages 3-11 and 3-12 of
Chapter 3, Project Description. The proposed project would
not conflict with implementation of this measure.
CC 03-03-20
702 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 42
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix
Measure Consistency
Measure C-E-3 Home & Commercial Building
Retrofit Outreach
Develop aggressive outreach program to drive
voluntary participation in energy- and water-
efficiency retrofits.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new and
therefore these measures would not apply as a retrofit.
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the
latest building code and utilize energy and water efficient
fixtures. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-E-4 Energy Assurance Plan
Develop a long-term community-wide energy
conservation plan that considers future
opportunities to influence building energy efficiency
through additional or enhanced building
regulations.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The proposed project includes buildings that would comply
with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen, at minimum, in addition to being designed to
achieve either a LEED Silver rating pursuant to CMC Chapter
16.58, Section 16.58.220, Table 101.10, as stated on pages 3-
11 and 3-12 of Chapter 3, Project Description.
Measure C-E-5 Community-Wide Solar
Photovoltaic Development
Encourage voluntary community-wide solar
photovoltaic development through regulatory
barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 4,400 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The proposed project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure. The project includes photovoltaic system cells
for on-site electricity production, pursuant to the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.
Measure C-E-6 Community-Wide Solar Hot Water
Development
Encourage communitywide solar hot water
development through regulatory barrier reduction
and public outreach campaigns.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 925 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed
project would include a photovoltaic system that would offset
GHG emissions from electricity generated by the project. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure C-E-7 Community Choice Energy Option
Partner with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions
to evaluate the development of a regional CCE
option, including identification of the geographic
scope, potential costs to participating jurisdictions
and residents, and potential liabilities.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 56,875 MT
CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The City of Cupertino is a member of Silicon Valley Clean
Energy (SVCE) which partners with PG&E to provide clean
electricity. The proposed project would receive energy from
SVCE. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
CC 03-03-20
703 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 43
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix
Measure Consistency
Measure C-T-1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Environment
Enhancements
Continue to encourage multi-modal transportation,
including walking and biking, through safety and
comfort enhancements in the bicycle and
pedestrian environment.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As stated in Section XV, Transportation, page 4-83 of the
IS/MND, the proposed project would not remove existing
bicycle facilities along North De Anza Boulevard, nor would it
conflict with the City’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The
proposed project would provide Class 1 bicycle parking spaces
in the subterranean parking garage, and Class 2 bicycle
parking spaces for guests and employees near the main
entrance. Therefore, the proposed project would promote
these alternative modes of transportation.
Measure C-T-2 Bikeshare Program
Explore feasibility of developing local bikeshare
program.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The proposed project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure. The proposed project includes Class 1 bicycle
parking spaces in the subterranean parking garage, and Class 2
bicycle parking spaces for guests and employees near the
main entrance.
Measure C-T-3 Transportation Demand
Management
Provide informational resources to local businesses
subject to SB 1339 transportation demand
management program requirements and
encourage additional voluntary participation in the
program.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 2,375 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-22 of
the IS/MND, the proposed project is an infill project near
transit stations served by VTA bus routes 55 and 81. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure C-T-4 Transit Route Expansion
Explore options to develop local community shuttle
or community-wide car sharing to fill gaps in
existing transit network.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-22 of
the IS/MND, the proposed project would include a dedicated
shuttle program for hotel employees and guests, which would
promote the development of a local community shuttle. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure C-T-5 Transit Priority
Improve transit service reliability and speed.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-22 of
the IS/MND, the proposed project is an infill project near
transit stations served by VTA bus routes 55 and 81. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of
this measure.
Measure C-T-6 Transit-Oriented Development
Continue to encourage development that takes
advantage of its location near local transit options
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-22 of
the IS/MND, the proposed project is an infill project near
transit stations served by VTA bus routes 55 and 81. As
described in Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 4-40
CC 03-03-20
704 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 44
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix
Measure Consistency
(e.g., major bus stops) through higher densities and
intensities to increase ridership potential.
Supporting Measure
of the IS/MND, the proposed project is within the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station
Areas PDA. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-T-7 Community-Wide Alternative Fuel
Vehicles
Encourage community-wide use of alternative fuel
vehicles through expansion of alternative vehicle
refueling infrastructure.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 10,225 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
Pursuant to the CMC Chapter 16.58.420, the proposed project
would include 10 percent of the total number of parking
spaces as capable of supporting installation of future electric
vehicle supply equipment. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7
Implement water conservation policies contained
within Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan
to achieve 20 percent per capita water reductions
by 2020.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
The proposed project would comply with SB X7-7, which
requires California to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban
per capita water use by 2020 and would implement best
management practices for water conservation to achieve the
City’s water conservation goals. As described in Chapter 3,
Project Description, the project incorporates water
conservation features for on-site irrigation. The irrigation
water on the site would be dual-sourced recycled water and
potable water as available from the LASD. Any lawn areas
would use 100 percent recycled water. All landscape zones
would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape
Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet
CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water
conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water
consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-W-2 Recycled Water Irrigation Program
Explore opportunities to use recycled water for
irrigation purposes to reduce potable water
demands.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
City must build the infrastructure to provide recycled water
for projects to use. As described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, the project incorporates water conservation
features for on-site irrigation. The irrigation water on the site
would be dual-sourced recycled water and potable water as
available from the LASD. Any lawn areas would use 100
percent recycled water. All landscape zones would be irrigated
as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water
uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards,
which requires water conservation and requires new buildings
to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed
project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-25 of
CC 03-03-20
705 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 45
Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix
Measure Consistency
Maximize solid waste diversion communitywide
through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.
Supporting Measure
the IS/MND, pursuant to CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and
Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, during
construction, the project would reduce construction waste
and divert materials from landfill and promote recycling of
construction waste. The proposed project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-SW-2 Food Scrap and Compostable
Paper Diversion
Continue to promote the collection of food scraps
and compostable paper through the City’s organics
collection program.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 750 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for implementing
this measure. The proposed project would include compost
and yard waste disposal services through the City’s contracts
with Recology South Bay. The materials would be collected by
the City garbage waste hauler. The proposed project would
not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste
Diversion Program
Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s
Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and
Green Building Ordinances.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 550 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-25,
the proposed project would comply with the City’s
Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance (CMC
Chapter 16.72), which requires applicable construction
projects to divert 65 percent of construction waste. Pursuant
to CMC Section 16.72.050, Information Required Before
Issuance of Permit, the project would create a construction
waste management plan to reduce construction waste and
divert materials from landfill and promote recycling of
construction waste. Prior to receiving a final building
inspection, a construction recycling report would be
submitted to show the tons recycled and disposed by material
type. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-G-1 Urban Forest Program
Support development and maintenance of a
healthy, vibrant urban forest through outreach,
incentives, and strategic leadership.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 725 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure.
All 11 existing trees would remain on-site under the proposed
project, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, page 3-
22 of the IS/MND. Based on sheet C3.0 of the April 2019
Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan Second Floor, the
proposed project would include 2,100 square feet of pervious
landscaped surfaces, including 14 new trees. The new
landscaping reduces storm water run-off, increases carbon
dioxide plantings, and reduces the heat sink profile of the site.
The proposed project would not conflict with implementation
of this measure.
Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in the Response to Comments Memo to the Planning Commission, because the proposed
project would comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
CC 03-03-20
706 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 46
requirements, no post-construction treatment measures as mandated by new State Water Regional
Water Quality Control Board standards. Therefore, for clarification, the paragraph on page 4 -52 of the
IS/MND under criterion (a) has been revised as follows:
Because the project would disturb one or more acres during construction, the project
applicant would be required to comply with State’s Construction General Permit and submit
PRDs to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a NOI and a site-
specific construction SWPPP that describes the incorporation of best management practices
to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during
construction. New requirements by the SWRCB would also require the project applicant to
prepare a construction SWPPP that includes post construction treatment measures aimed at
minimizing storm water runoff. With implementation of these measures best management
practices, water quality impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Section XI. Noise
The following change has been made because the project applicant has clarified that no emergency
generator will be installed as part of the project.
Following the second paragraph under subsection “Project-Related Operational Noise, Stationary
Noise,” on page 4- the text has been revised as follows:
In addition, an emergency backup generator is proposed on the roof inside an enclosure. It is
anticipated that the generator would be power rated at 275 kilowatt (kW) and would only be
used during an emergency power outage or for routine testing (up to 50 hours per year per
BAAQMD regulations). A typical 275 kW generator with a weatherproof enclosure would
produce noise levels of approximately 84 dBA at a distance of 23 feet. With a Level II sound
attenuation enclosure, a typical 275 kW generator would produce noise levels of approximately
75 dBA at a distance of 23 feet. The proposed six-foot metal rooftop panel, shown in Figure 3-8,
would provide additional shielding, as might the roof itself depending upon the final design.
However, to provide a conservative assessment of operational noise impacts, these project
features were not factored into the estimated noise level at nearby receptors since the height of
the exhaust/enclosure is unknown at this time. At the nearest non-residential receptor
(commercial uses to the west), noise levels would be reduced to approximately 76 dBA with a
weatherproof enclosure and 67 dBA with a Level II sound enclosure. In both cases, this would
potentially exceed the CMC daytime noise limit of 65 dBA. The commercial uses to the west
would not be any more sensitive during nighttime hours than daytime hours. At the nearest
residential receptors (Aviare Apartments 150 feet to the east), noise levels would be reduced to
approximately 65 dBA with a weatherproof enclosure and 56 dBA with a Level II sound
enclosure. In both cases, this would potentially exceed the CMC nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA
for residential receptors. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. With
CC 03-03-20
707 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 47
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2, project-related operational noise impacts would
be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the
operation phase that would be in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to
reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of
60 dBA and 50 dBA at residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65
dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses (i.e., the Cupertino Hotel) during daytime
and nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review
mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise reduction
measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements.
Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding
uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include,
but are not limited to:
§ Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
§ Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to
block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors;
§ Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Section XVII. Utilities and Service Systems
The discussion of wastewater treatment capacity in the IS/MND has been revised to acknowledge the
updated generation rates in the CSD’s Flow Modeling Analysis for Homestead Flume Outfall to City of
Santa Clara published December 6, 2019 after the release of the Public Draft IS/MND on July 2, 2019.
Text in Criterion (c) start ing on page 4-93 has been revised as follows:
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
Based on the May 2007 City of Santa Clara Sewer Capacity Assessment CSD’s Flow Modeling Analysis
Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara dated December 6, 2019, the estimated wastewater
average dry weather flow (ADWF) generation rate for hotel uses is 100 84.6 gpd per room. Applying
this generation rate, the proposed 156-room hotel would generate up to 15,600 13,197.6 gpd or
approximately 0.0156 0.0132 mgd of wastewater.
The SJ/SCWPCP’s current total projected peak wet weather capacity stated in The San Jose Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan (see page 15), November 2013, of is 450 mgd. The ADWF
capacity is 167 mgd pursuant to the most recent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
CC 03-03-20
708 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 48
(NPDES) permit for the SJ/SCWPCP (Order No. R2-2014-0034, NODES No. CA0037842). Combined, the
proposed project’s wastewater generation (0.0156 0.0132 mgd) and the existing wastewater
generated (105 110 mgd) would not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP’s current total peak wet weather or ADWF
capacity of 450 mgd limits.
The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd, on average, with the
SJ/SCWPCP. At the time of the General Plan EIR, the wastewater generation of 5.3 mgd was estimated
by the CSD.123 Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.0156
0.0132 mgd) would not exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the
proposed 156-room hotel is within the 1,339-hotel-room limit evaluated in the General Plan EIR;
therefore, no new impact would result.
The CSD wastewater system flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The
contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara
sewer system, allows 13.8 mgd during peak wet weather flows. The existing CSD peak wet weather
flow into the Santa Clara system is 13.29 13.14 mgd. 124 However, the estimated wastewater
generation from the proposed project and from other potential projects as established by the General
Plan and other approved projects, the total capacity needed to serve these projects is approximately
14.02 14.61 mgd. 125 Therefore, the proposed project, and other approved and potential projects as
established by the General Plan buildout, will require a reduction in sewer generation from the CSD
system prior to flowing into the City of Santa Clara system, or additional capacity rights will need to be
acquired from the City of Santa Clara.
CSD performed smoke testing of a portion of the sewer system in 2018. The results of the smoke
testing showed that certain portions of their system are being impacted by inflow from illegal
connections to the system. These illegal connections include area drains, catch basins and roof
rainwater leaders from both public and private facilities within the City of Cupertino and the City of
Saratoga jurisdictions. These illegal connections collect storm water and direct the flow to the sewer
system. Calculating the flows from these illegal connections, using the Manning’s flow equation and
the size of the areas that flow to these connections, there is an addition of approximately 0.4 mgd to
the sanitary sewer peak wet weather flow. Disconnecting these illegal connections and redirecting
these storm water flows to the public storm drain system would result in a reduction of the sewer
peak wet weather from 14.02 mgd to 13.62 mgd, which is below the City of Santa Clara contractual
limit.
Footnotes:
123 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Appendix B: Housing Element
Technical Report, 4.3 Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B -93.
124 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall
to City of Santa Clara. February 20, 2019 December 6, 2019.
CC 03-03-20
709 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 49
125 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall
to City of Santa Clara. February 20, 2019 December 6, 2019. Sewage coefficients use to calculate the
sewer generation rates for the various uses in the project and the General Plan buildout were taken
from the San Jose - Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific Use Code & Sewer Coefficient
table and from the City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assessment, May 2007.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1
Revisions to Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 shown on pages 4-94 and 4-95 as well as pages 2-9 in Chapter
2 Executive Summary, and 5-10 and 5-11 in Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been revised as follows.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed
De Anza Hotel Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant
shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District
(CSD), that the proposed hotel would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the
Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:
1) Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
2) Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water
consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are
measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of
the CSD.
3) The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the
generation rates used by the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Specific
Use Code & Sewer Coefficient table in the May 2007, City of Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer
Capacity Assessment,126 CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume
Outfall to the City of Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6,
2019 and California Green Building Standards, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation
rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based
on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a
10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as
required by CSD pursuant to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.
Footnote:
126 Mark Thomas and Associates, Email communication with Cupertino Public Works. July 19, 2018.
CC 03-03-20
710 of 873
February 20, 2020 | Page 50
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
As described in the Response to Comments Memo for the Planning Commission, Appendix A of the
IS/MND has been revised to include additional modeling worksheets that begin on page 45 of the
Revised Appendix A.
CC 03-03-20
711 of 873
0
0
101
1t
1
A101
1
SIM
Room name
101
GRID LINES, ALIGNMENT
is to EXTERIOR FACE of STUD
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
DOOR TAG
WINDOW TAG
DATUM POINT
BUILDING SECTION VIEW,
VIEW and SHEET NUMBERS
REVISION
DETAIL REFERENCE,
VIEW and SHEET NUMBERS
CENTER LINE
ROOM NAME
ROOM NUMBER
DIMENSIONS - FACE of STUD,
GRID LINE, and/or as NOTED
4'-0" +/-
ENLARGED DRAWING
AREA REFERENCE
WALL SECTION VIEW,
VIEW and SHEET NUMBERS
(N)NEW
NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
NO., #NUMBER
NTS NOT TO SCALE
OC ON CENTER
OF OVERFLOW
OFL OVERFLOW LEADER
PDF POWER DRIVEN FASTENERS
PNL PANEL
R RADIUS
RD ROOF DRAIN
REQ'D REQUIRED
REM REMOVE, REMOVED
RF ROOF
RM ROOM
R&R REMOVE and REPLACE
RWL RAIN WATER LEADER
SAF SELF ADHERING FLASHING
SASM SELF ADHERING SHEET MEMBRANE
SCD SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
SED SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS
SLD SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
SIM SIMILAR
SMD SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS
SPD SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS
SPPD SEE PROCESS PIPING DRAWINGS
SPEC SPECIFICATIONS
SS STAINLESS STEEL
SSD SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
STD STANDARD
STOR STORAGE
STS SELF TAPPING SCREW
STSMS SELF TAPPING SHEET METAL SCREW
SUSP SUSPENDED
TBD TO BE DETERMINED
TBR TO BE REMOVED
TBRL TO BE RELOCATED
TBS TO BE SELECTED
TEL TELEPHONE
TEMP TEMPERED, TEMPORARY
ToC, TC TOP of CONCRETE
TFF TOP of FINISH FLOOR
ToS,TS TOP of SLAB
ToW,TW TOP of WALL
TYP TYPICAL
UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE
VIF VERIFY IN FIELD
W WIDTH, WIDE
WC WATER CLOSET
WD WOOD
WG WIRE GLASS
ZN ZINC
ACOUS ACOUSTICAL
ADJ ADJUSTABLE
AFES AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING
SYSTEM
AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
AHU AUTHORITY HAVING
JURISDICTION
ALUM ALUMINUM
APPRX APPROXIMATE
BLDG BUILDING
BoB BOTTOM of BEAM
CC CENTER to CENTER
CLG CEILING
D DEPTH
DET DETAIL
DIA DIAMETER
DIM DIMENSION
DS DOWNSPOUT
EA EACH
(E)EXISTING
EMR ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM
EQ EQUAL
EXT EXTERIOR
FA FIRE ALARM
FBRGLSFIBERGLASS
FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONNECTION
FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET
FF FINISHED FLOOR
FH FIRE HOSE, FIRE HYDRANT
FHC FIRE HOSE CABINET
FLR FLOOR
FLOUR FLOURESCENT
FoC FACE of CONCRETE
FoF FACE of FINISH
FoS FACE of STUD
FS FIRE SPRINKLER
GA GAGE, GAUGE
GALV GALVANIZED
GI GALVANIZED IRON
GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD
H, HT HEIGHT
HM HOLLOW METAL
IGU INSULATED GLAZING UNIT
INT INTERIOR
JST JOIST
LAV LAVATORY
LED LIGHT EMITTING DIODE
MAX MAXIMUM
MB MACHINE BOLT
MTL METAL
MFR MANUFACTURER
MIN MINIMUM
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
12" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:52:33 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A0.00
Cover SheetThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CADRAWING INDEX
LOCATION MAP
ABBREVIATIONSSYMBOLS PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER
De Anza Properties
960 N San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA
Jeremy Haggberg
408-221-2068
jhaggberg@deanzaproperties.com
DESIGNER
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Rd
Soquel, CA 95073
Bill Winkleman
408-353-6700
bill@winklemandesigns.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
The Guzzardo Partnership
181 Greenwich Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Paul Lettieri
415-433-4672
p.lettieri@tgp-inc.com
CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH Weiss, Inc
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
DJ Edwards
408-286-4555
djedwards@jmhweiss.com
ARCHITECTURAL CIVIL
LANDSCAPE
A0.00 Cover Sheet
A1.00 Site Plan
A1.01 Site and 1st Floor Plan
A2.0-GL1 Garage Level 1 Plan
A2.0-GL2 Garage Level 2 Plan
A2.0-GL3 Garage Level 3 Plan
A2.0-GL4 Garage Level 4 Plan
A2.0-Mids Garage Levels 1.5, 2.5, 3.5
A2.01 First Floor Plan
A2.02 Second Floor Plan
A2.03 Third Floor Plan
A2.04 Roof Plan
A2.05 Bar and Elevator Roof Plans
A5.00 Exterior Elevations
A5.01 Exterior Elevations
A5.10 Building Section
A5.11 Bulding Sections
A5.12 Buildling Section
A5.13 Building Section
A5.14 Building Section
A5.15 Building Section
C1.0 Existing Conditions
C1.1 Fire Hydrant Site Plan
C2.0 Conceptual Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan
C3.0 Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan 2nd Floor
C3.1 Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan 1st Floor
C3.2 Stormwater Management Notes & Details
L1 Streetscape Conceptual Plan
L2 Notes and Specifications
L3 Landscape Imagery
L4 Tree Disposition Plan
ADDRESS 10931 N Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014
APN 160-55-015, 016
SITE AREA, NET 56287sf, 1.29 Acres
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 28702sf
BUILDING COVERAGE 51%
BUILDING AREAS
Conference/Meeting 4242sf
Restaurant, Bar and Kitchen 4239sf (2259sf Restaurant and Bar)
Roof Lounge 5022
Building Area (Enclosed)130,716sf
Garage Area 95,205sf
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2.28
Number of Stories 7 (Above Grade)
Number of Stories 4 (Below Grade)
Number of Guest Rooms 155
SCOPE of WORK
Construct a new 6 story hotel with 4 underground levels of parking and
hotel services area
10931 N De Anza Blvd
Cupertino, CA
The De Anza
GPA AND USE PERMIT
SUBMITTAL
April 19, 2019
CONSTRUCTION
Type 1A
Fire Sprinklers Yes
Occupancy Types R1 (Guest Rooms), A2 (Restaurant/Lounge),
A3 (Conference), S2 (Garage)
APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES
2016 California Building Codes
CCR Title 24, Parts 2-6, Part 9, and Part 11
Applicable Local Ordinances, Regulations, and
Amendments
BUILDING CODES
PARKING SUMMARY
Required 1 per Room (155) 1 per Employee (20),
Restaurant/Lounge 1 per 4 patrons (42) = 217 Required
Provided Provided: Garage (206), On Grade (11), 217 Total
(7) Accessible Stalls required, (7) provided De Anza Properties
for
No. Date Description
View from De Anza Boulevard
EXTERIOR VIEWS (11x17)
A11.00 East View (Elevated)
A11.00n East View Evening (Elevated)
A11.01 SE View
A11.01n SE View Evening
A11.02 South View
A11.03 West View
A11.04 NW View
A11.05 NW View from Homestead Rd
A11.06 North View
A11.06n North View Evening
A11.07 NE View
A11.07n NE View Evening
A11.08 Materials Board
CC 03-03-20
712 of 873
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
221' - 4"127' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 9 1/2"
0° 13' 00"
121.90'
N W 89° 47' 00"21.99'SW0° 13' 00"
186.72'
N W
89° 47' 00"191.75'NE0° 02' 49"
308.62'
S W89° 47' 00"168.34'SWDE ANZA BOULEVARD
5 6 7 8 9 10
40' - 0"LOADING ZONENO PARKINGFH
FH
5' - 9"
5' - 4"9' - 0"32'-6"/-20'-2"+/-9' - 4"5' - 0"32'-6"+/-
226' - 0"
CUPERTINO
HOTEL
26' - 1"4 11
SHOPPING
CENTER
RETAIL
RETAIL
NEW
HOTEL
DECORATIVE
PAVING AT
ENTRY DRIVE
(E) DRIVEWAY,
AC PAVING
6th FLOOR WALL
LINE BELOW
TERRACE ON 2nd
STORY BELOW
GREEN ROOF ON
2nd STORY BELOW
MECH EQUIP
SCREEN WALL
ELEVATORS
1 & 2 ROOF
STAIR 1
ROOF
BAR
ROOF
HOUSE
KEEPING
ELEVATOR
ROOF
DEDICATION
LINE
ROOF TERRACE
MECH EQUIP
SCREEN WALL
6th FLOOR ROOF
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1" = 20'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:52:47 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A1.00
Site PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
713 of 873
UP
UP
UP
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
1
A5.11c
1
A5.13c127' - 0"FF = 210.5
G1 = 199.5+/-
G2 = 188.5+/-
G3 = 177.5+/-
G4 = 166.5+/-
PAD = 163.5+/-
SCD FOR MORE INFO
GARAGE
RAMP
DOWN
STAIR 1
TRASH
STAIR 2
HK
ELEV
CORRIDOROFFICE
BELL/BAG/VALET
KITCHEN
PRE-FUNCTION 2
CHECK-IN
EL1 EL2 EL314' - 7 1/2"PRE-FUNCTION 1 PRE-FUNCTION 3
(E) CONC WALK
30' - 0"5' - 9 1/2"28'-0"+/-CONFERENCE 1EXERCISE CONFERENCE 2
0° 13' 00"
121.90'
N W 89° 47' 00"21.99'SW0° 13' 00"
186.72'
N W
89° 47' 00"191.75'NE0° 02' 49"
308.62'
S W89° 47' 00"168.34'SWDE ANZA BOULEVARD
8' - 0"
(N) BICYCLE
PARKING
VESTIBULE
VAN
1
1
3
5 6 7 8 9 10
4' - 0"18' - 0"RESTAURANT/BAR
FF=210.5
(E)=207.9(E)=208.2 40' - 0"LOADING ZONENO PARKINGUP 5RAMP UP
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPEELEC
VAULTLANDSCAPE
FH
FH206.14
206.50
206.60
207.10
30'-0 1/2"+/-5' - 9"
5' - 4"9' - 0"32'-6"/-
11' - 2"9' - 4"LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE32' - 3"18' - 0"4' - 3"10' - 0"24' - 0"12' - 4"
18' - 0"10' - 0"9' - 0"18' - 0"20'-2"+/-12' - 0"5' - 0"
9' - 4"5' - 0"32'-6"+/-
226' - 0"
CUPERTINO
HOTEL
SHOPPING CENTER
26' - 1"4CY 4CY 4CY
-3.43
4 11
26'-0".FIRE TRUCK -
INSIDE TURNING
RADIUS OF 23'
OUTSIDE 36'9'x8' DR
CURB FLUSH WITH
AC PAVING
50' - 5 1/2"38' - 0"26' - 3 3/4"60' - 10"50' - 4 3/4"DEDICATION LINE 6" INBOARD FROM
SIDEWALK EASEMENT LINE, SCDRAMP DNAll drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/16" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:06 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A1.01
Site and 1st Floor PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/16" = 1'-0"1Site and First Floor Plan
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
714 of 873
UP
UP
1
A5.13127' - 0"A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[No Slope]
15.00% %
[No Slope]
1
A5.12
23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"
226' - 0"
4.30%
[No Slope]
SLOPE DN
TO L2
ACC PARKING1' - 3"18' - 0"25'-9".18' - 0"1' - 0"18' - 0"25' - 9"18' - 0"20' - 7 123/256"GARAGE
LEVEL 1
GARAGE
LEVEL 1.5
1
A5.11
25' - 6 1/4"18' - 0"
1
A5.10
ELEC
STAIR
HK
ELEV
STAIR 2
EL3
EXHAUST
MDF
FSR
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
5.00%23.75'7246.00'1831.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.071.081.091.101.111.121.131.141.151.161.171.181.191.201.21
1.221.231.241.251.261.271.28
1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37
4.30%
GARAGE PARKING SUMMARY:
GARAGE LEVEL 1 62
GARAGE LEVEL 2 66
GARAGE LEVEL 3 69
GARAGE LEVEL 4 9
GARAGE TOTAL 206
1
A5.11c
UP TO
1st
FLOOR
SLOPE DN
TO L1.58 SPACES ON SLAB26' - 0"33' - 9 5/256"29' - 9"10' - 4"27' - 1 251/256"25' - 4"11' - 4"134' - 8 143/256"
LINE OF ELEVATORS
1 & 2 ABOVE
1' - 3"188' - 11"12' - 0"7' - 5"16' - 5"17' - 1"27' - 6 3/4"
4' - 0"9' - 4"9' - 4"9' - 4"4' - 0"
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.42 9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"4' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"2'.17' - 9"1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55
5' - 0"18' - 0"
OPEN TO
BELOW
10.00%4' - 7 1/2"5' - 0"12' - 0"5' - 2 1/2"9' - 0"5' - 0 1/2"12' - 0"18' - 0"
1
A5.13c
161
162
22' - 0"STORAGE
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:50:26 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.0-GL1
Garage Level 1 PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Garage - L1
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
715 of 873
UP
UP
1
A5.13127' - 0"226' - 0 3/256"
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
GARAGE
LEVEL 2
GARAGE
LEVEL 2.5
18
48DOWN
TO L2.5
EXHAUST
STAIR 2
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"4.30%
STAIR 1
2.33 2.34
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.072.082.092.102.112.122.132.142.152.162.172.182.192.202.21
2.31 2.302.32 2.29 2.28 2.27 2.26 2.25 2.24
4.30% UP
TO L1.5
2.222.23
1.381.371.361.351.341.33
2.65
2.66
4.30% DN
TO L3
KLAUS LAYER SYSTEM
AP F2 OR EQUAL
1
A5.11c
HK
ELEV
EL 3
2.43
2.44
2.45
2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.51
2.52 2.53 2.54 2.55 2.00 2.01 2.021.601.591.581.571.561.551.541.53
1
A5.13c
18' - 0"25' - 3"18' - 0"
4' - 4"15' - 6"15' - 6"18' - 0"27'-8"+/-1' - 3"18' - 0"23' - 9"6' - 9"12' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"6' - 3"25' - 9"18' - 0"1' - 3"18' - 0"3' - 9"22' - 0"18' - 0"1' - 0"18' - 0"25' - 9"18' - 0"1' - 3"All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:11 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.0-GL2
Garage Level 2 PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Garage - L2
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
716 of 873
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
2.422.412.402.392.38
EXHAUST
HK
ELEV
STAIR 2
STAIR 1
GARAGE
LEVEL 3
EL 3
4.3% SLOPE
UP TO L2.5
1
A5.11c
3.01 3.02 3.032.642.632.622.612.602.592.58
1
A5.13c18' - 0"25' - 9"18' - 0"124' - 6"63' - 6"63' - 6"18' - 0"25'-9".18' - 0"1' - 0"2'-0".9'-4".9' - 4"9'-4".2'-0".
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
3.083.093.103.113.123.133.143.153.163.173.183.193.203.213.223.233.243.25
335
3.36
3.37
3.38
3.39
3.40
3.41
3.42
3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47
3.56 3.57 3.58
3.34 3.33 3.32 3.31 3.30 3.29 3.28 3.27 326
3.08
4.3% SLOPE
DN TO L3.5
GARAGE
LEVEL 3.5
4.3% SLOPE
UP TO L4.0
25' - 6"
3.69
3.68
127' - 0"226' - 0"
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:13 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.0-GL3
Garage Level 3 PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Garage - L3
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
717 of 873
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15 9' - 4"SERVICES AND STORAGE
59' - 6 5/256"29' - 9"35' - 2 251/256"HK
EXHAUST
STAIR 2
RAMP UP TO GL3.5
3146SF
UNDER LEVEL 3.5 SLAB
ELEV 1, 2, & 3
MACH RM ELEV 3
GARAGE
LEVEL 4
111'-0"+/-
4.01 4.02 4.03
STORAGE
367
3.553.543.533.523.513.503.493.47 3.48
3.59 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64 3.65 3.66
HK ELEV
MACH RM
4.04
4.06
4.05
4.074.084.09
29'-9"+/-18' - 0"9'-4"+/-All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:00:51 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.0-GL4
Garage Level 4 PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Garage - L4
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
718 of 873
UP
UP
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
4.30%
128' - 0"
1.29
1.28
1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.072.082.091.111.121.131.141.151.161.171.181.191.201.21
1.27 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.228 SPACES ON SLAB16 SPACES ON SLAB
1
A5.11c
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.49 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.60 2.00 2.01 2.021.48
1
A5.13c
2.66
2.65
ELEV
GARAGE
LEVEL 1.5
DOWN
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
EXHUAST
UP
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.42
2.32 2.31 2.30 2.29 2.28 2.27 2.26 2.25 2.24
2.21 2.20 2.19 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.15 2.14 2.132.222.23
1
A5.11c
2.43
2.44
2.45
2.46
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.51
2.52 2.53 2.54 2.55 2.56 2.57 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 3.01 3.02 3.03
2.12 7' - 9"1
A5.13c
3.10 3.09 3.08
3.07
3.06
3.05
3.04
3.69
3.68
ELEV
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
EXHAUST
STAIR 1
GARAGE
LEVEL 2.5
DOWN
UP
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
SERVICES
GARAGE
LEVEL 3.5
EL 3
STR1
1
A5.11c
STR2
RAMP DN TO GL4
TURN
AROUND
RAMP UP
1
A5.13c
3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55
3.56 3.57 3.58 3.59 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64 3.65 3.66 367
3.55 4.01 4.02 4.03
3.42
3.41
3.40
3.39
3.38
3.37
3.36
335
3.25 3.24 3.23 3.22 3.21 3.20 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14
3.39
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/16" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:19 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.0-Mids
Garage Levels 1.5, 2.5,
3.5The De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/16" = 1'-0"1Garage - L1.5
1/16" = 1'-0"2Garage - L2.5
No. Date Description
1/16" = 1'-0"3Garage - L3.5
CC 03-03-20
719 of 873
UP
UP
UP
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
GARAGE
RAMP
DOWN
STAIR 1
25' - 8"
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
2259SF
1983SF
CORRIDOR
CONFERENCE
TOTAL = 4242SF
OFFICE
BELL/BAG/VALET
TRASH KITCHEN
PRE-FUNCTION 2
CHECK-IN
EL1 EL2 EL314' - 7 1/2"PRE-FUNCTION 1
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
36' - 10"
WOMEN
944SF
CONFERENCE 1EXERCISE
PRE-FUNCTION 3
CONFERENCE 2
LOBBY
PORTE COCHERE MEN
127' - 0"1
13' - 6"5' - 0"11' - 6"7' - 8 3/4"STOR
ART
GARAGE
MECHANICAL
ROOM ABOVE
3' - 6"EXHAUST
100' - 3"46' - 6"51' - 0 3/4"39' - 7 3/4"31' - 0"20' - 9"31' - 3"38' - 4 1/2"15' - 6"25' - 6"37' - 1 3/4"
27' - 3 1/2"29' - 7 1/2"8' - 0"
21' - 8"
13' - 3 1/2"19' - 4 1/2"8' - 9"DE ANZA TERRACE
RESTAURANT
AND BAR
21' - 6"29'-7"+/-VEST
2256SF
1983SF
0' - 0"11' - 3"5' - 1"18' - 5"
2' - 0"8' - 3 1/2"4CY 4CY 4CY
18' - 0"
15' - 6"7' - 10"
11' - 2"9' - 4"10' - 2"22' - 6"
TABLES
TABLES
PLANTER
SERVICE
RECEPTION BAR
226' - 0"
48'-2"+/-23'-0".15' - 0"12'-4".78
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:21 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A2.01
First Floor PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1First Floor Plan
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
720 of 873
UPUP
UP
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
14' - 2 1/2"14' - 2 1/2"6' - 0"201202203
220
221
219
223222
224
225
226227228
213212
211
210
209
208
207
206 205 204 7' - 0"214
215 216 217 218
6' - 0"11' - 2"LOBBY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
HK ELEV
14' - 2 1/2"13' - 9 1/2"14' - 0 1/2"7' - 0"13' - 11 1/2"30' - 9 1/2"29' - 11 1/2"46' - 4 3/4"36' - 5 1/2"7' - 0"11' - 2 1/2"
14' - 4 3/4"32' - 0"32' - 0"
GREEN ROOF
PATIO
229
14' - 6"
14' - 5 3/4"14' - 10 1/2"
23015' - 3"36' - 4"66' - 7 1/4"94' - 0 3/4"65' - 4"
TERRACE
26' - 6 1/2"
12' - 0"
7' - 0"
ELEC
LOUNGE 7' - 0"1' - 4"HK
8' - 0"BALCONYBALCONY,
TYP
EL2EL1
231
LOUNGE
STORAGE 23' - 0"25' - 0"31' - 0"31' - 0"17' - 0"13' - 3 1/4"15' - 4"12' - 0"28' - 0"124' - 0"51' - 0"
14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6"14' - 6"
17' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"32' - 0"17' - 0"
14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"
13' - 3 3/4"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
111' - 0"111' - 0"26' - 10 1/2"31' - 7 1/4"4' - 11"10' - 10"4' - 10"14' - 2"14' - 1"
16' - 0"15' - 1"
14' - 0"
14' - 5 3/4"
14' - 6 1/2"2' - 0"9' - 0"21' - 8"12' - 8"5' - 4"11' - 6"2' - 8"11' - 6"5' - 4"11' - 6"2' - 8"9' - 0"5' - 4 1/2"14' - 9 1/2"1' - 8 1/4"2' - 3"7' - 0"
1 5' - 1"5' - 9"5' - 1"1' - 3"5' - 3"
27' - 4"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"9' - 1 1/32"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 8"
5'-4".4'-4".7' - 4 3/256"
1702sf
3635sf - Terrace
1702sf - Green Roof
653sf - Planters
418sf - Planters (C3)
16' - 6"
ACCESS HATCH FROM
MECH MEZZANINE BELOW
RUNOFF FILTRATION
PLANTER
RUNOFF FILTRATION
PLANTER
PLANTER, TYP
PLANTER, TYP
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF WITH
INTEGRAL GUTTER
15' - 6"
16' - 3"
11' - 2"9' - 4"10' - 2"DEDICATION LINE 6"
INBOARD FROM
SIDEWALK
EASEMENT LINE
BELOW, SCD 1'-10"+/-3'-6"+/-226' - 0"127' - 0"6' - 8"6'-8".6' - 8"8' - 0"6'-8".All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 7:53:27 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A2.02
Second Floor PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"12nd
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
721 of 873
UP
A5.00
1
A5.012
A5.00
A5.01
2
1
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
1
A5.11c
A5.00C
1
A5.01C 1
A5.00C
2
1
A5.13c6' - 0"10' - 4"
23' - 6"23' - 6"
301302303
320
321
319
323322
324
325
326327328
313312
311
310
309
308
307
306 305 304
314
315 316 317 318
LOBBY
329330331
STAIR 1
HK ELEV
ELEC
LOUNGE HK
EL
2
EL
1
LOUNGE
STORAGE
STAIR 2
DEDICATION LINE 6" INBOARD
FROM SIDEWALK EASEMENT
LINE BELOW1'-7"+/-4' - 6 1/4"BALCONY, TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
BALCONY,
TYP
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:34:15 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A2.03
Third Floor PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date Description
1/8" = 1'-0"13rd
4th, 5th and 6th FLOORS SIMILAR
CC 03-03-20
722 of 873
A5.012
A5.00
2
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
EL2
STAIR 1
MECH
EQUIP
METAL PANEL
SCREEN WALL
PV PANELS
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING WITH INTEGRAL
GUTTER, 4:12 PITCH, TYP UON
PVC SINGLE PLY
ROOFING, TYP AT
LOW SLOPE ROOFS
HK ELEV
STAIR 2
EXHAUST
15' - 6"10' - 2"WINE
TASTING
62' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 6"PREP BAR
LOUNGE
RR
RR 11' - 4"FOYER 21' - 10"ROOF
TERRACE
ELEV
LOBBY
2903sf
1225sf
ROOF LINE
ABOVE
DEDICATION LINE 6" INBOARD
FROM SIDEWALK EASEMENT
LINE BELOW5'-8"+/-4'-10"+/-3'-6"+/-2'-8"+/-5' - 10"5' - 2"
ELEC BAR
STORAGE
BALCONY
WINE
STOR
248sf
63' - 0"
58
24 8
TRANSOM WINDOWS
ABOVE, SEE ELEVATIONS
TRANSOM WINDOWS
ABOVE, SEE ELEVATIONS
TEMP GL TO 6'AFF ABOVE
2'-6" HIGH CONC WALL, TYP
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:42:47 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.04
Roof PlanThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Roof
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
723 of 873
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
ROOF ABOVE
ELEVATORS 1 AND 2
ROOF
ABOVE HK
ELEVATOR
ROOF ABOVE BAR
AND LOUNGE
ROOF
ABOVE
STAIR 1
ROOF ABOVE 6th FLOORROOF ABOVE 6th FLOOR
MECH EQUIP
MECH EQUIP
ROOF TERRACE BELOW
SSR BELOW BALCONY
RAILING
BELOW
1
A5.13
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT
5' METAL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
ROOF LINE
ABOVE
ROOF LINE
ABOVE
ROOF LINE
BELOW
STAIR 1
ROOF LINE
BELOW
ELEV 1
ELEV 2
OPEN TO ELEV
LOBBY BELOW OPEN TO
FOYER
BELOW
HK
ELEV
OPEN TO
BELOW
ROOF LEVELS BELOW NOT
SHOWN, SEE ELEVATOR
ROOF PLAN, 1/-
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
N 1/16" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:42:48 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A2.05
Bar and Elevator Roof
PlansThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date Description
1/16" = 1'-0"1Elevator Roof
1/16" = 1'-0"2Bar Roof
CC 03-03-20
724 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
1
A5.13
7' - 4"10' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"18' - 0"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
Roof
70' - 8"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
BFC
GL1
SC
M5
M1
SSR
BFC GL3
GL1GL1M3
GL1
GL1
BFC
GL2
GL1GL1
STR
6th
58' - 8"
M1
M1
M1
GL2
GL3
M3M3
SC
BFC
M1
M3M3M3
M1
GL3GL3
METAL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
M1
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
GL3GL3
GL1GL1 GL1
GL1 GL1 GL1
GL3
GL1
METAL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
BFC BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
SC SMOOTH FORMED CONCRETE
GL1 GLAZING SYSTEM 1 (LIGHT GRAY)
GL2 GLASS RAILINGS (CLEAR)
GL3 GLAZING SYSTEM 2 (DARK GRAY)
M1 METAL 1
M2 METAL 2
M3 METAL 3 (GREEN SCREEN)
M4 METAL 4 (EXPANDED METAL)
M5 PAINTED METAL
SSR STANDING SEAM ROOFING
1st
0' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
1
A5.13
123456789
18' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
Roof
70' - 8"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
M4
M3 M3
GL1MP1GL1BFCGL3 GL1 M3 M3 M1 GL1
GL2
MP2
GL3
BFC
BFC
7'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
GL1
GL1
GL2BFC [980]32' - 2"[224]7' - 4"6th
58' - 8"
M4
M1
BFC
M3 M2M2M3M3
BFC
M2 M2
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
BFC
GL2 BFC
GL3 GL3 GL3
GL3
GL3
SC
5'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
As indicated
C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:03:34 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A5.00
Exterior ElevationsThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1East
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
No. Date Description
1/8" = 1'-0"2West
CC 03-03-20
725 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
ABCDEF
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.11c
Roof
70' - 8"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
M3
BFC
M3 BFC GL2M3M2M2
GL1
GL1
GL2BFC
M5
GL1
BFC
BFC
6th
58' - 8"
M2
SSR
GL3 GL3
SC
SC
BFC
M1
M1
M5
M1
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
BFC
GL2
SC
GL1
GL1
GL1
BFC
1st
0' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
A B C
D E F1
A5.12
1
A5.111
A5.10
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.11c
Roof
70' - 8"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
BFC
BFC
M2
GL1
M1
M5
SSR
M5
M3
7'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
6th
58' - 8"
M2M2M3
M1 BFC SC
SC
SSR
SC
M1
M1
GL1
M2
BFC
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
GL1GL1GL1GL1GL1GL1
GL1
GL3
M3M3 M1M1
M1
M1 BFC
5'+/- METAL
PANEL ROOF
SCREEN
GL2
GL2
GL1
CLEAR
GLASS
BLOCK, TYP
M2
BFC BOARD FORMED CONCRETE
SC SMOOTH FORMED CONCRETE
GL1 GLAZING SYSTEM 1 (LIGHT GRAY)
GL2 GLASS RAILINGS (CLEAR)
GL3 GLAZING SYSTEM 2 (DARK GRAY)
M1 METAL 1
M2 METAL 2
M3 METAL 3 (GREEN SCREEN)
M4 METAL 4 (EXPANDED METAL)
M5 PAINTED METAL
SSR STANDING SEAM ROOFING
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
As indicated
C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:11:12 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A5.01
Exterior ElevationsThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"2North
1/8" = 1'-0"1South
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
726 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
1
A5.13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"
Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
RUNOFF
FILTRATION
PLANTER
GARAGE L1.5
GARAGE 2.5
GARAGE L1
GARAGE L2
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
GARAGE L316' - 6"11' - 0"44' - 0"Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
GARAGE 3.5
Roof
70' - 8"
Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
GARAGE L4
WOMENMENOFFICEVALET, BELLMAN, BAG STORAGEPORTE COCHERE CORRIDOR
210 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 223
LOUNGE
HK ELEV
6th
58' - 8"5' - 0"10' - 6"STAIR 13' - 6"7' - 4"10' - 0"12' - 0"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"10' - 2"18' - 0"11' - 0"5' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 6"11' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"Bar Roof
82' - 8"
610 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 623
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:13:16 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
W
17200
A5.10
Building SectionThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Longitudinal - Parking at West Wall
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
727 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
1
A5.13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"
Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
Roof
70' - 8"
Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"9' - 0"Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
6th
58' - 8"
HOTEL SERVICES
ELECMDF
RESTAURANTDE ANZA
TERRACE
TERRACE
G1
G2
G3
G4
G1.5
G2.5
G3.5
EXERCISE CONFERENCE
201202203204205206
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
601602603604605606
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:17:02 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A5.11
Bulding SectionsThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Longitudinal - through Terrace
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
728 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
1
A5.13
123456789
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"10' - 0"Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
1
A5.14
1
A5.15
10' - 0"10' - 0"53'-4".10' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 6"Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
Roof
70' - 8"9' - 0"Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
28-2
38-4
48-6
58-8
70-2
82 8
88 2
97 4
6th
58' - 8"6' - 6"10' - 6"7' - 0"GARAGE ACCESS RAMP
GL1
TRASH KITCHENCORR MECHANICAL
GREEN ROOF
223 222 221 214 213 212STAIR 1
PORTE
COCHERE
GL2
GL3
GL4
GL3.5
GL2.5
GL1.5
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
MECHANICAL
623 622 621
614 613 612
5'+/- MTL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
GL3 GL3 GL3
GL3
GL3GL3
GL1
7'+/- MTL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
SSR
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:22:54 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A5.12
Buildling SectionThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Longitudinall - through Garage Ramp
No. Date Description
CC 03-03-20
729 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
A B C D E F
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"
1
A5.12
1
A5.11
1
A5.10
Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
Roof
70' - 8"
Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
0.36:1 ANGLE FROM PL
ON DE ANZA BLVD
(PREVIOUS GPA
SUBMITTAL APPROVED
SETBACK SLOPE
6th
58' - 8"
227218
GREEN ROOF
MECHANICAL
GARAGE RAMP
TERRACE
(E) PL
0.22:1 SLOPE FROM CURB ON
DE ANZA BLVD AT NORTH
TOWER, 0.18:1 SLOPE FROM
SOUTH TOWER (CURB LINE
VARIES)
PRE-FUNCTION 2OFFICELOBBY
0.64:1, 0.74:1, and 0.72:1 SLOPE FROM
CURB ON DE ANZA BLVD (SOUTH TO
NORTH, CURB LINE VARIES)
CURB LINE
VARIES,
SEE SITE
PLAN
1:1 ANGLE FROM PL ON
DE ANZA BLVD
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
(N)
DEDICATION
LINE NOT
PARALLEL TO
BUILDING, SCD
AND A1.01
17'-6"+/-3'-1"+/-
VARIES
ENCROACHMENT VARIES, SEE
A1.01, A2.02, A2.03, A2.04, AND
SCD
627618
RR RR
BFC
SMOOTH
CONC TRIM
BAND
GLASS
RAILING
3' - 6"2' - 6"6' - 0"M2 M3
M5
M1
BFC
SC
SC
M4
PRE-FUNCTION 2
EL1 EL2 EL3
PRE-FUNCTION 1 PRE-FUNCTION 3
(E) CONC WALK
30' - 0"5' - 9 1/2"
CONFERENCE 1EXERCISE CONFERENCE 2
0° 02' 49"
308.62'
S W89° 47' 00"168.34'SWDE ANZA BOULEVARD
VESTIBULE
RESTAURANT/BAR
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPEELEC
VAULT
206.14
206.50
206.60
207.10
20'-2"+/-9' - 4"5' - 0"32'-6"+/-
-3.43
50.46 37.99 26.31 60.84 50.40
Setback Plane 1 - 0.18:1
Setback Plane 2 - 0.64:1 Setback Plane 3
0.74:1 Setback Plane 4 - 0.72:1
Setback Plane 5 - 0.22:1
Weighted Average Sloped Setback Plane = 0.47:1
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
As indicated
C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:25:49 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A5.13
Building SectionThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Lateral - through Terrace Looking North
No. Date Description
1/16" = 1'-0"2Site and First Floor Plan
01-4-19 Updated Sloped Setbacks,
added Partial Site Plan
CC 03-03-20
730 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
A B C D E F
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"
1
A5.12
1
A5.111
A5.10
Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
Stair Roof
80' - 8"
Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
1
A5.11c
Roof
70' - 8"
Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
6th
58' - 8"
STAIR 2HK ELEV
TRASH
223 224 225 201
RESTAURANT
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
EXHAUST
SHAFT
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
624 625 601
EMRSTORAGE SERVICES AND STORAGE
PARKING PARKING
623
WINE
TASTING
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:26:48 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A5.14
Building SectionThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date Description
1/8" = 1'-0"1Lateral - through Stair 2
CC 03-03-20
731 of 873
1st
0' - 0"
Garage - L1
-11' - 0"
Garage - L2
-22' - 0"
2nd
18' - 0"
3rd
28' - 2"
4th
38' - 4"
5th
48' - 6"
A B C D E F
Garage - L2.5
-27' - 6"
1
A5.12
1
A5.111
A5.10
Garage - L1.5
-16' - 6"
Stair Roof
80' - 8"16' - 6"Garage - L3
-33' - 0"
Garage - L3.5
-38' - 6"
Roof
70' - 8"
Garage - L4.0
-44' - 0"
Elevator Roof
88' - 0"
6th
58' - 8"
Bar Roof
82' - 8"
5'+/- MTL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
M1 TYP
6'+/- MTL PANEL
ROOF SCREEN
PARAPET WALL
GL1
GL1
GL3
205
605
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
LOUNGE
LOUNGE
STAIR 1
GLASS RAILING
3' - 6"2' - 6"6' - 0"All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the Designer and may not, without
written consent of the Designer, be
duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in
part for design, fabrications, or construction
of any building, structure, or improvement,
or portion thereof, other than the specific
project to which it pertains.
Date
Sheet Date
Scale
Drawn
Job
Sheet
c Winkleman Designs 2018
Winkleman Designs
1795 Amaya Ridge Road
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel 408-353-6700
Fax 408-353-4729
bill@winklemandesigns.com
R E V I S I O N S
1/8" = 1'-0"C:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 8:29:32 PM
11/13/18
4/19/19
Author
17200
A5.15
Building SectionThe De AnzaDe Anza Properties10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"1Lateral - through Stair 1
No. Date Description
PORTE COCHERE
CC
CONFERENCE
CC 03-03-20
732 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:47:34 PMA11.00East View (Elevated)De Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19W10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 733 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:48:06 PMA11.00nEast View Evening (Elevated)De Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 734 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:48:29 PMA11.01SE ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 735 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:48:55 PMA11.01nSE View EveningDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 736 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:49:05 PMA11.02South ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19W10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 737 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:49:15 PMA11.03West ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19W10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 738 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:49:38 PMA11.04NW ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 739 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:50:01 PMA11.05NW from Homestead RdDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza04/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 740 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:50:16 PMA11.06North ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19W10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 741 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:50:33 PMA11.06nNorth View EveningDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 742 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:50:58 PMA11.07NE ViewDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 743 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:51:16 PMA11.07nNE View EveningDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza4/19/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CACC 03-03-20 744 of 873
ScaleDateDrawnWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge Road Soquel, CA 95073408.353.6700 bill@winklemandesigns.comC:\Users\Bill\Documents\DAH-CEN19_7Story_Final_bill@winklemandesigns.com.rvt4/21/2019 9:51:30 PMA11.08Materials BoardDe Anza PropertiesThe De Anza3/6/19Author10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CAMETAL 3(M3)METAL 1(M1)SMOOTH CONCRETE (SC)BOARD FORMED CONCRETE (BFC)METAL 2(M2)GLAZING 3(GL3)GLAZING 2(GL2)GLAZING 1(GL1)CC 03-03-20 745 of 873
UPS W
Winkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC1.1FIRE HYDRANTSITE PLANCC 03-03-20 746 of 873
Winkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC1.0EXISTINGCONDITIONSCC 03-03-20 747 of 873
Winkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC2.0CONCEPTUALGRADING,DRAINAGE, &UTILITY PLANNOTE:CC 03-03-20 748 of 873
TERRACEF2,440SFFLOW-THROUGHPLANTERWinkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC3.0CONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANSECONDFLOORTREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE (TCM) SUMMARY TABLEID AREA TCM No.Landscape(SF)Parking&SidewalkArea (SF)RoofArea (SF)TotalSub-Area(SF)Area BImperviousContribution (SF)Area BLandscapeContribution (SF)Total Areato be Treated (SF)TotalArea(Acres)TotalImpervious Area(SF)Treatment TypeTreatment Area Required(SF)Treatment AreaProvided (SF)Depth ofPonding(in)A14296,6110 7,0402,625137 9,8020.239,236Bio-retention3693696C31682,0810 2,2493,9750 6,2240.146,056Bio-retention2422426D40013,23113,23100 13,2310.3013,231Bio-retention5295306E5008,5368,53600 8,5360.208,536Bio-retention3413416F6002,440 2,44000 2,4400.062,440Flow-Through Planter98986G7004,6444,644 1,6120 6,2560.146,256Flow-Through Planter2502506H8001,7401,7408000 2,5400.062,540Flow-Through Planter1021026I9001,6231,62300 1,6230.041,623Flow-Through Planter65656J101,55600 1,55600 1,5560.040Greef RoofN/AN/AN/ATOTAL2,1538,69232,214 43,0599,01213752,2081.2049,91819971997*New pavement not creating a travel lane and new sidewalk created on an existing street are exempt from C.3 requirementsfor public roadway projects per Tablr 2-2 of the Chapter 2.3 of thr C.3 Control Handbook (SCVURPPP, April 2012)ID AREA TCM No.Landscape ParkingRoofTotalTotalTotalTreatment TypeNOTE:THE REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA FOR DMA BIS DISTRIBUTED TO TCMS (#) AS EQUIVALENT TEATMENT AREA. THE AMOUNT OFEQUIVALENT TREATMENT AREA IS ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER 'AREA BCONTRIBUTION'.K-050905090509Roadway ProjectL-096009600960Roadway ProjectCC 03-03-20 749 of 873
S W
Winkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC3.1CONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANFIRST FLOORSTORM DRAIN INLET NOTES:CC 03-03-20 750 of 873
SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES:1. USE WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS2. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING, E.G., SWEEP PAVEMENT ANDCLEAN CATCH BASIN.3.0BENEFICIAL LANDSCAPING.4. USE OF WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.5. MAINTENANCE (PAVEMENT SWEEPING, CATCH BASINCLEANING, GOOD HOUSEKEEPING).6.STORM DRAIN LABELING.OTHER: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCEINFORMATION:I. PROPERTY INFORMATION:I.A. PROPERTY ADDRESS:10931 N DE ANZA BLVD , CUPERTINO, CAI.B. PROPERTY OWNER: DE ANZA PROPERTIESJ. RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE:J.A. CONTACT:DE ANZA PROPERTIESJ.B. PHONE NUMBER OF CONTACT:(650)-209-3232 J.C. EMAIL: J.D. ADDRESS:960 N SAN ANTONIO ROAD, SUITE 114,LOS ALTOS, CA PROJECT SITE INFORMATION:1. SOILS TYPE: 2. GROUND WATER DEPTH: 3. NAME OF RECEIVING BODY: 4. FLOOD ZONE: 5. FLOOD ELEVATION (IF APPLICABLE): Winkleman Designs1795 Amaya Ridge RoadSoquel, CA 95073Tel 408-353-6700Fax 408-353-4729bill@winklemandesigns.comR E V I S I O N SAS-SHOWN04/19/1904/19/19OG5132THE DE ANZA
De Anza Properties
10931 N De Anza Blvd, Cupertino, CANo. Date DescriptionC3.2STORMWATERMANAGEMENTNOTES &DETAILSBIOTREATMENT SOIL REQUIREMENTSFile: ..\..\Design Documents\Stormwater\5132 Combo Flow-Volume Calculation.pdfTABLE 1ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR BIORETENTION AREASNO.MAINTENANCE TASKFREQUENCY OF TASK1REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS, WEEDS, DEBRIS AND TRASH FROM BIORETENTION AREAAND ITS INLETS AND OUTLETS; AND DISPOSE OF PROPERLY.QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDEDAFTER STORM EVENTS2INSPECT BIORETENTION AREA FOR STANDING WATER. IF STANDING WATER DOESNOT DRAIN WITHIN 2-3 DAYS, TILL AND REPLACE THE SURFACE BIOTREATMENTSOIL WITH THE APPROVED SOIL MIX AND REPLANT.QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDEDAFTER STORM EVENTS3CHECK UNDERDRAINS FOR CLOGGING. USE THE CLEANOUT RISER TO CLEAN ANYCLOGGED UNDERDRAINS.QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDEDAFTER STORM EVENTS4MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ENSURE THAT PLANTS ARE RECEIVINGTHE CORRECT AMOUNT OF WATER (IF APPLICABLE).QUARTERLY5ENSURE THAT THE VEGETATION IS HEALTHY AND DENSE ENOUGH TO PROVIDEFILTERING AND PROTECT SOILS FROM EROSION. PRUNE AND WEED THEBIORETENTION AREA. REMOVE AND/OR REPLACE ANY DEAD PLANTS.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASON BEGINS6USE COMPOST AND OTHER NATURAL SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZERSINSTEAD OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS, ESPECIALLY IF THE SYSTEM USES ANUNDERDRAIN.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASON BEGINS7CHECK THAT MULCH IS AT APPROPRIATE DEPTH (2 - 3 INCHES PER SOILSPECIFICATIONS) AND REPLENISH AS NECESSARY BEFORE WET SEASON BEGINS.IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT 2” – 3” OF ARBOR MULCH BE REAPPLIED EVERY YEAR.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASON BEGINS8INSPECT THE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT THE INLET TO ENSURE IT IS FUNCTIONINGADEQUATELY, AND THAT THERE IS NO SCOUR OF THE SURFACE MULCH. REMOVEACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASON BEGINS9INSPECT OVERFLOW PIPE TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN SAFELY CONVEY EXCESSFLOWS TO A STORM DRAIN. REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED PIPING.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASON BEGINS10REPLACE BIOTREATMENT SOIL AND MULCH, IF NEEDED. CHECK FOR STANDINGWATER, STRUCTURAL FAILURE AND CLOGGED OVERFLOWS. REMOVE TRASH ANDDEBRIS. REPLACE DEAD PLANTS.11 INSPECT BIORETENTION AREA USING THE ATTACHED INSPECTION CHECKLIST.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WETSEASONTABLE 1ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERSNO.MAINTENANCE TASKFREQUENCY OF TASK1INSPECT THE PLANTER SURFACE AREA, INLETS AND OUTLETS FOR OBSTRUCTIONSAND TRASH; CLEAR ANY OBSTRUCTIONS AND REMOVE TRASH.QUARTERLY2INSPECT PLANTER FOR STANDING WATER. IF STANDING WATER DOES NOT DRAINWITHIN 2-3 DAYS, THE SURFACE BIOTREATMENT SOIL SHOULD BE TILLED ORREPLACED WITH THE APPROVED SOIL MIX AND REPLANTED. USE THE CLEANOUTRISER TO CLEAR ANY UNDERDRAINS OF OBSTRUCTIONS OR CLOGGING MATERIAL.QUARTERLY3CHECK FOR ERODED OR SETTLED BIOTREATMENT SOIL MEDIA. LEVEL SOIL WITHRAKE AND REMOVE/REPLANT VEGETATION AS NECESSARY.QUARTERLY4MAINTAIN THE VEGETATION AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PRUNE AND WEED TO KEEPFLOW-THROUGH PLANTER NEAT AND ORDERLY IN APPEARANCE.QUARTERLY5EVALUATE HEALTH AND DENSITY OF VEGETATION. REMOVE AND REPLACE ALLDEAD AND DISEASED VEGETATION. REMOVE EXCESSIVE GROWTH OF PLANTS THATARE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE RAINYSEASON BEGINS6USE COMPOST AND OTHER NATURAL SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZERSINSTEAD OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS, ESPECIALLY IF THE SYSTEM USES ANUNDERDRAIN.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE RAINYSEASON BEGINS7INSPECT THE OVERFLOW PIPE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CAN SAFELY CONVEYEXCESS FLOWS TO A STORM DRAIN. REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGED ORDISCONNECTED PIPING. USE THE CLEANOUT RISER TO CLEAR UNDERDRAINS OFOBSTRUCTIONS OR CLOGGING MATERIAL.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE RAINYSEASON BEGINS8INSPECT THE ENERGY DISSIPATOR AT THE INLET TO ENSURE IT IS FUNCTIONINGADEQUATELY, AND THAT THERE IS NO SCOUR OF THE SURFACE MULCH. REMOVEANY ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE RAINYSEASON BEGINS9INSPECT AND, IF NEEDED, REPLACE WOOD MULCH. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT 2"TO 3" OF COMPOSTED ARBOR MULCH BE APPLIED ONCE A YEAR.ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE RAINYSEASON BEGINS10INSPECT SYSTEM FOR EROSION OF BIOTREATMENT SOIL MEDIA, LOSS OF MULCH,STANDING WATER, CLOGGED OVERFLOWS, WEEDS, TRASH AND DEAD PLANTS. IFUSING ROCK MULCH, CHECK FOR 3” OF COVERAGE.ANNUALLY AT THE END OF THERAINY SEASON AND/OR AFTERLARGE STORM EVENTS,11INSPECT SYSTEM FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF WALLS, FLOW SPREADERS,ENERGY DISSIPATORS, CURB CUTS, OUTLETS AND FLOW SPLITTERS.ANNUALLY AT THE END OF THERAINY SEASON AND/OR AFTERLARGE STORM EVENTS,3:1 MAXRIM TRITON (FULL TRASH CAPTURE) FTC-TH SERIES DETAILCC 03-03-20 751 of 873
CC 03-03-20
752 of 873
CC 03-03-20
753 of 873
CC 03-03-20
754 of 873
CC 03-03-20
755 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2019-20.
1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2019-20.
2. Approve Budget Modification 1920-076 for Mid-Year adjustments as described in the Mid-Year
Financial Report.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 20-026 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments.
File #:19-6273,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
756 of 873
1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 3, 2020
Subject
Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Recommended Action
1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2019-20
2. Approve Budget Modification 1920-XXX for Mid-Year adjustments as described
in the Mid-Year Financial Report
3. Adopt a resolution 20-XXX approving Mid-Year budget adjustments
Background
On June 18, 2019, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 201 9-20 Budget, a
$150,532,151 spending plan for the City of Cupertino. On November 19, 2019, Council
received an update on the City’s spending plan as part of the City Manager’s First
Quarter Financial Report, which revised the budget to account for encumbrances of
$10,718,669 and carryover appropriations of $35,250,910 from FY 2018-19.
Encumbrances represent funds for valid obligations related to unfilled purchase orders
or unfilled contracts that are rolled over from one year to the next until those
obligations are fulfilled or terminated. Carryover appropriations are unencumbered
funds for unfinished projects that are carried over for use in the following fiscal year in
order to complete those projects.
In the first two quarters of FY 2019-20, Council approved $10,463,215 in additional
appropriations mostly related to a $2.5 million increase for Regnart Creek Trail, $1.7
million for salary and benefit increases due to labor negotiations, $1.3 million for
Orange & Byrne Ave Sidewalk project, and $3 million for the Library Expansion Project.
This resulted in an amended budget of $206,964,945. These FY 2019-20 budget
adjustments are summarized in the following table:
Mid-Year Financial Report Summary of Budget Adjustments by Fund
CC 03-03-20
757 of 873
2
Fund FY 19-20
Adopted Carryovers Encumbrances
Adjustments
Approved in
1st-2nd
Quarters
FY 19-20
Amended
Budget as Dec
31, 2019
General $80,104,468 $8,478,803 $1,962,541 $2,247,428 $92,793,240
Special Revenue 9,837,377 15,746,048 4,075,806 $1,564,528 $31,223,759
Debt Service 3,172,838 - - - $3,172,838
Capital Projects 37,944,918 9,906,136 4,179,420 $6,448,441 $58,478,915
Enterprise 11,524,189 804,884 30,265 $94,073 $12,453,411
Internal Service 7,948,361 315,039 470,637 $108,745 $8,842,782
Total All Funds $150,532,151 $35,250,910 $10,718,669 $10,463,215 $206,964,945
Discussion
The Mid-Year Financial Report focuses on the status of the City’s budget as of
December 31, 2019 and recommends adjustments to ensure the budget reflects the
City’s current revenue outlook and is responsive to changing spending priorities. As
shown in the chart below, $44,805,615, in net budget adjustments are being requested,
of which $20,000,000 involves a transfer of excess fund balance to the Capital Reserve
per the City’s Reserve and One Time Use Policy. Additionally, $22,057,710 of requested
appropriations pertain to Vallco Town Center and will be offset with $32,048,517 in fee
revenues. The $9,990,807 excess in revenues over expenditures will fund staffing and
overhead costs for performing plan check and construction reviews and inspections. If
approved, the City’s new spending plan would total $253,181,436 across all funds.
Mid-Year Financial Report Summary by Fund
Fund
Amended
Budget as of
December 31,
2019
Requested
Mid-Year
Adjustments
Year End
Projections
General $92,793,240 $43,758,334 $136,550,574
Special Revenue $31,223,759 $0 $33,539,383
Debt Service $3,172,838 $0 $3,169,438
Capital Projects $58,478,915 $2,458,157 $60,937,072
Enterprise $12,453,411 $0 $11,242,379
Internal Service $8,842,782 $0 $9,275,600
Total All Funds $206,964,945 $46,216,491 $253,181,436
A projected increase to unassigned fund bal ance in the amount of $6,537,464 across all
funds would occur as summarized in the table below:
CC 03-03-20
758 of 873
3
Fund Department Expense Revenue Fund Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 6,000$ -$ (6,000)$ BBF Freezer
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,280$ -$ (5,280)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 7,920$ -$ (7,920)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund Community Development 14,650,000$ 22,538,435$ 7,888,435$ Vallco Town Center Construction Plan Check
100 General Fund Community Development 5,406,634$ 7,208,845$ 1,802,211$ Vallco Town Center Building Inspections
100 General Fund Community Development 1,069,000$ -$ (1,069,000)$ Vallco Specific Plan
100 General Fund Public Works 2,001,076$ 2,301,237$ 300,161$ Vallco Town Center PW Plan Review/Inspections
100 General Fund Public Works 60,000$ -$ (60,000)$ Street Lighting - Contract Services
100 General Fund Public Works 45,000$ -$ (45,000)$ Street Lighting - Materials
100 General Fund Public Works 42,500$ -$ (42,500)$ Sr. Ctr. Fire Sprinkler System Repair
100 General Fund Public Works 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ Traffic Calming
100 General Fund Public Works 12,205$ -$ (12,205)$ BBF Tree Removal
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 352,719$ -$ (352,719)$ Transfer for Library Expansion Project
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 20,000,000$ -$ (20,000,000)$ Transfer Excess Fund Balance to Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 43,758,334$ 32,048,517$ (11,709,817)$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund CIP 1,400,000$ -$ (1,400,000)$ Sports Center Interior Improvements
420 Capital Improvement Fund CIP 705,438$ 705,438$ -$ Library Expansion Project
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental $ 352,719 -$ (352,719)$ Transfer to CIP for Library Expansion Project
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental -$ 20,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 2,458,157$ 20,705,438$ 18,247,281$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 46,216,491$ 52,753,955$ 6,537,464$
General Fund Update
4-Year Comparison of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes to Fund Balance
In reviewing the City’s General Fund historical revenue, expenditures and fund
balance, you will note that although the City has historically budgeted the use of fund
balance, this use was not due to a structural deficit but due to the transfer out of excess
fund balance from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve per the City’s one time use
policy. Due to the City’s encumbrance and budget carryover process, excess fund
balance resulted as part of the year end actuals.
CC 03-03-20
759 of 873
4
Revenue
As of mid-year, General Fund revenue is tracking at $38.2 million or 7% higher than the
same time last year due to changes in the City’s in various revenue sources as shown in
the table and described in greater detail below.
Comparison of FY 2018-19 General Fund Mid-Year Revenues to FY 2019-20
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2019 2020
05 - Sales tax 12,646,444$ 12,082,134$ (564,309)$ -4%
10 - Property tax 7,003,151 7,430,263 427,112 6%
15 - Transient occupancy 3,136,963 4,248,918 1,111,955 35%
20 - Utility tax 1,201,574 1,332,066 130,492 11%
25 - Franchise fees 644,658 694,529 49,871 8%
30 - Other taxes 684,519 669,321 (15,198) -2%
35 - Licenses and permits 1,730,418 3,301,123 1,570,705 91%
40 - Use of money and property 1,007,092 1,095,695 88,604 9%
45 - Intergovernmental revenue 126,198 167,979 41,781 33%
50 - Charges for services 5,262,979 5,801,392 538,413 10%
55 - Fines and forfeitures 175,607 145,735 (29,873) -17%
60 - Miscellaneous 894,986 1,006,780 111,793 12%
65 - Transfers in 10,000 12,000 2,000 20%
70 - Other financing sources 1,199,524$ 164,663$ (1,034,861)$ -86%
Grand Total 35,724,114$ 38,152,599$ 2,428,484$ 7%
Revenue Category Variance % Change
Sales Tax revenue is received six months in arrears, with dollars received for the most
recent quarter (Oct-Dec 2019) relating to revenue collected in the fourth quarter of the
last fiscal year (Apr-Jun 2019). Sales tax received as of mid-year was $564,309, or 4%,
less than last year due to reduced sales tax localization. This decrease, based on
economically adjusted sales tax data, is due primarily to decreases in the Business to
Business industry group; a 1% decrease over the same time period one year ago.
Additionally, the State and County pools remained relatively stagnant, experiencing a
$10,000, or 0.5% decrease. The Building and Construction industry group experienced
the largest decline of approximately $63,000, or Restaurants and Hotels saw
approximately $50,000 or 8.2% increase due to recent new eateries opening in the City.
This growth was offset by a decrease in Building and Construction of 35.5% or
approximately $63,000, or 22%. As of December 31, 2019, the City’s sales tax is
approximately 47% of the annual budget. At this time, City staff are not requesting an
adjustment and will continue to monitor the activities for the remainder of the fiscal
year.
CC 03-03-20
760 of 873
5
Effective October 1, 2019, companies such as Amazon, eBay and Google who provide
sales tax related services to other retailers are required to assume the obligation for
collecting and remitting their client’s sales and use tax. The Marketplace provision was
part of AB 147 which was adopted to implement California’s approach to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. AB 147 requires out-of-state
retailers with annual combined sales of $500,000 or more to now collect and remit this
state’s sales and use tax from its customers. Applying the $500,000 threshold to the sum
total of all the third-party transactions that facilitators process for their clients, is hoped
to produce moderate gains in previously uncollected revenues for the state, cities,
counties, and local transaction tax districts. Facilitator tax remittances from
merchandise inventoried in California will be allocated to specific jurisdictions while
receipts from deliveries outside of the state will be distr ibuted via the pools based on
respective share of the pool. As of the last reporting quarter Cupertino’s share of the
County pool was 7.0%.
Property Tax revenue has come in higher than the same time last year by $427,112, or
6%. Residential use values increased 5.8%, or $881.5 million and represented 38% of all
growth experienced in the City. Commercial properties posted an increase of $20.9
million or a year-over-year increase of 0.3%. Unsecured assets in Cupertino decreased
7.8% or $138 million on forty (40) fewer bills that were reported this year. Many of the
additions and movements between sites of assets owned by Apple Inc. contributed to
this shift. At this time, staff do not recommend an adjustment to the annual property tax
estimation.
Transient Occupancy Tax has come in $1,111,955, or 35%, higher than last year’s mid-year
point. Increases in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues are a result of the Hyatt
House that opened in April 2019. Additionally, the City’s voluntary collection
agreement with Airbnb to collect TOT, which began in August 2018, has continued to
experience growth (approximately $450,000 annually). Staff have estimated total TOT
revenues for FY 19-20 at $9.7 million and currently anticipate meeting and/or exceeding
the estimation by fiscal year-end. The Cupertino Village Hotel, approved by City
Council on July 16, 2019, and the De Anza Hotel, will be brought to City Council for
approval on March 3, 2020, do not have an anticipated opening date; however, would
likely generate an estimated $2.2 million in additional annual TOT revenue for the City.
Staff will continue to monitor and report back as part of the third-quarter financial
report.
Utility Tax is up approximately $130,500 or 11% mainly due to a large increase in utility
revenue coming from Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority and 3 Phases Renewables.
CC 03-03-20
761 of 873
6
Other Taxes have decreased by approximately $16,000, or 2%, primarily due to receiving
penalties and interests related to late payment penalties from Apple Inc. last fiscal year
offset by an increase in Property Tax Transfers.
Franchise Fees have increased by $50,000, or 8%, primarily due to an increase in
Recology franchise fees collected.
Licenses and Permits increased by $1.57 million, or 91%, due to permit fees for Vallco
Town Center.
Use of Money and Property increased by $89,000, or 9%, due to increased interest earnings
from the City’s investment portfolio and an increase in antenna site rental rate for the
Service Center.
Intergovernmental Revenue has increased by $42,000, or 33%, due primarily to an increase
of State Mandated Cost reimbursements received.
Charges for Services have increased by $538,000, or 10%, primarily due to increases in
Engineering fees for Public Works’ plan reviews.
Fines and Forfeitures have decreased $30,000, or 17%, primarily due to fewer citations
administered in the current year. Additionally, the City experienced a higher volume of
administration citation appeal hearings at the mid-point last fiscal year compared to
fiscal year 2019-20.
Miscellaneous revenue has increased by $112,000, or 12%, due primarily to an increase to
an ongoing donation from Apple Inc. to fund additional law enforcement services.
Transfers In have increased by $2,000, or 20% due to a transfer in from the Tree Fund.
Other Financing Sources is down $1 million, or 86%, due to last fiscal year’s increase in
refundable deposit administrative fees collected due to the Vallco Specific Plan.
Expenditures
As of mid-year, overall expenditures in the General Fund are down by $8.4 million, or
17%, when compared to the same time last year due to an $8 million transfer from the
General Fund to the Capital Reserve in FY 2018-19. The following table shows the
differences between General Fund expenditures as of the mid-year in the current fiscal
year and the prior fiscal year:
CC 03-03-20
762 of 873
7
Comparison of FY 2018-19 General Fund Mid-Year Expenditures to FY 2019-20
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2019 2020
05 - Employee compensation 8,470,928$ 8,767,818$ 296,890$ 4%
10 - Employee benefits 3,499,014 3,770,254 271,240$ 8%
15 - Materials 2,107,880 2,621,548 513,668$ 24%
20 - Contract services 9,581,857 10,863,901 1,282,044$ 13%
25 - Cost allocation 4,684,112 4,893,239 209,127$ 4%
30 - Capital outlays 417,937 68,424 (349,513)$ -84%
31 - Special projects 2,606,450 809,324 (1,797,126)$ -69%
45 - Transfer out 19,358,912 10,539,557 (8,819,355)$ -46%
50 - Other financing uses 133,765 95,957 (37,808)$ -28%
Grand Total 50,860,854$ 42,430,022$ (8,430,832)$ -17%
Expenditure Category Variance % Change
Salary and Benefits increases are approximately $568,000, or 5%, due primarily to labor
negotiations approved by Council on July 16, 2019. Increases in salary, driven by cost of
living adjustments as well as equity adjustments, can be anticipated for the span of the
negotiation term ending June 30, 2022.
Materials costs are up approximately $514,000, or 24%, due primarily to the San Jose
Water and PG&E service increases over the previous fiscal year. Additionally, the
Innovation & Technology Department experienced increases in materials spending ,
primarily related to the acquisition of Accela, the City’s new land use management
system.
Contract Services have increased approximately $1.3 million, or 13%, due primarily to
increased costs for the City’s contract wit h the Santa Clara County Sheriff.
Administrative Services Department experienced an increase in insurance fees, claims,
and premiums, specifically related to a settlement agreement. Additionally, contracting
out of the City Attorney’s Office contributed significantly to the increase over the prior
year.
Cost Allocation increases are approximately $209,000, or 4%, due primarily to increases
in Administrative Services charges.
Capital Outlay costs are down approximately $350,000, or 84%, due to streets and
Creekside building maintenance expenditures in fiscal year 2018-19 that weren’t
incurred in the current fiscal year.
CC 03-03-20
763 of 873
8
Special Projects decreases are approximately $1.8 million, or 69%, primarily due to costs
associated with the Water System Assessment, Apple Campus 2 and Vallco Specific
Plan in fiscal year 2018-19 that were not incurred in fiscal year 2019-20.
Transfers Out decreases are approximately $8.8 million, or 46%, due to an $8 million
transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve as part of Mid-Year in fiscal year
2018-19 and in accordance with the City’s one-time fund balance policy.
Other Financing Uses have decreased slightly due to refundable deposit on-call contracts
for Community Development Department.
All Other Funds Update and Year End Projections
Revenue
As of mid-year, revenue in all other funds is tracking at $37.9 million, or 15%, lower
than the same time last year due primarily to an $8 million transfer into the Capital
Reserve as part of Mid-Year in fiscal year 2018-19 and in accordance with the City’s one-
time fund balance policy.
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2019 2020
30 - Other taxes 423,241$ 272,115$ (151,126)$ -36%
40 - Use of money and property 560,793 787,109 226,317 40%
45 - Intergovernmental revenue 1,336,028 1,644,959 308,931 23%
50 - Charges for services 5,468,758 5,221,710 (247,048) -5%
55 - Fines and forfeitures 12,912 7,243 (5,669) -44%
60 - Miscellaneous 54,743 3,518,419 3,463,676 6327%
65 - Transfers in 36,511,162 26,244,557 (10,266,605) -28%
70 - Other financing sources 249,143 192,360 (56,783) -23%
Grand Total 44,616,780$ 37,888,473$ (6,728,308)$ -15%
Revenue Category Variance % Change
Other Taxes decreased approximately $151,000, or 36%, due to decreases in storm drain
fees, park dedication fees, and housing mitigation fees.
Use of Money and Property increased by approximately $226,000, or 40%, due to
increased interest earnings from the City’s investment portfolio.
Intergovernmental Revenue increased by approximately $309,000, or 23%, due primarily
to an increase in our Transportation Fund collections of Vehicle Registration Fees,
Highway User’s Tax, and SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation funding.
CC 03-03-20
764 of 873
9
Charges for services decreased approximately $247,000, or 5%, primarily due to a
reduction in Innovation and Technology Infrastructure and GIS allocated services.
Fines and forfeitures decreased approximately $5,700, or 44%, due to a decreased volume
in citations administered over the prior year.
Miscellaneous revenue increased approximately $3,500,000, or 6327%, due primarily to
an Apple Grant received to fund various CIP projects for bikeways, trails, and
sidewalks.
Transfers In decreased approximately $10.3 million, or 28%, primarily due to last fiscal
year’s defunded CIP projects and $8 million transfer into the Capital Reserve from the
General Fund.
Other financing sources decreased approximately $56,800, or 23%, due to a reduction in
workers’ compensation cost allocation plan charges offset by an increase in proceeds
received from the sale of vehicles and equipment that had reached their useful lives.
Expenditures
As of first quarter, overall expenditures are tracking at $32.7 million or 5% higher than
the same time last year due primarily to increases in compensation and capital outlays.
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2019 2020
05 - Employee compensation 2,005,689$ 2,284,933$ 279,245$ 14%
10 - Employee benefits 1,317,747 1,457,873 140,126 11%
15 - Materials 741,731 769,283 27,553 4%
20 - Contract services 2,975,516 3,178,757 203,241 7%
25 - Cost allocation 1,029,449 1,492,657 463,208 45%
30 - Capital outlays 2,036,118 4,562,889 2,526,770 124%
31 - Special projects 3,589,972 2,905,295 (684,678) -19%
40 - Debt services 45,604 - (45,604) N/A
45 - Transfer out 17,162,250 15,717,000 (1,445,250) -8%
Grand Total 30,904,076$ 32,368,687$ 1,464,611$ 5%
% ChangeExpenditure Category Variance
Salary and Benefits increases are approximately $419,000 or 12% due primarily to labor
negotiations approved by Council on July 16, 2019. Increases in compensation, driven
by cost of living adjustments as well as equity adjustments, can be anticipated for the
span of the negotiation term ending June 30, 2022.
CC 03-03-20
765 of 873
10
Materials have increased approximately $28,000, or 4%, and is due to various minor
fluctuations. City staff performed a zero-base budget in fiscal year 2019-20 and as a
result, minor reclassifications of expenditures were made and are attributed to the
increase.
Contract Services have increased approximately $203,000, or 7%, due, but not limited to
increases for tennis camps and related activities within the Parks & Recreation
Department. Innovation & Technology Department’s Infrastructure Division
experienced increases due to the re-engineering of the compute and applications
infrastructure for the City.
Cost Allocation increased approximately $463,000, or 45%, due primarily to increases in
the Innovation & Technology charges due to additional one-time project expenses.
Capital Outlays increased approximately $2.5 million, or 124%, due to a number of
projects progressing including, but not limited to, McClellan West Parking Lot
Improvements and 2016 Bike Plan Implementation.
Special Projects decreased approximately $685,000, or 19%, due to decreases in annual
asphalt project spending, offset with increase in vehicle/equipment spending or fixed
asset acquisition.
Debt Service, Transfers Out decreased approximately $1.5 million, or 8%, due to less
capital project funding outside of the Capital Projects Fund in respect to the previous
fiscal year.
Budget Adjustment Requests
As of the mid-year a few departments are requesting budget adjustments to ensure they
end the year within budget appropriations. The recommended adjustments are
summarized in the table below:
CC 03-03-20
766 of 873
11
Fund Department Expense Revenue Fund Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 6,000$ -$ (6,000)$ BBF Freezer
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,280$ -$ (5,280)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund Parks & Recreation 7,920$ -$ (7,920)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund Community Development 14,650,000$ 22,538,435$ 7,888,435$ Vallco Town Center Construction Plan Check
100 General Fund Community Development 5,406,634$ 7,208,845$ 1,802,211$ Vallco Town Center Building Inspections
100 General Fund Community Development 1,069,000$ -$ (1,069,000)$ Vallco Specific Plan
100 General Fund Public Works 2,001,076$ 2,301,237$ 300,161$ Vallco Town Center PW Plan Review/Inspections
100 General Fund Public Works 60,000$ -$ (60,000)$ Street Lighting - Contract Services
100 General Fund Public Works 45,000$ -$ (45,000)$ Street Lighting - Materials
100 General Fund Public Works 42,500$ -$ (42,500)$ Sr. Ctr. Fire Sprinkler System Repair
100 General Fund Public Works 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ Traffic Calming
100 General Fund Public Works 12,205$ -$ (12,205)$ BBF Tree Removal
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 352,719$ -$ (352,719)$ Transfer for Library Expansion Project
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 20,000,000$ -$ (20,000,000)$ Transfer Excess Fund Balance to Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 43,758,334$ 32,048,517$ (11,709,817)$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund CIP 1,400,000$ -$ (1,400,000)$ Sports Center Interior Improvements
420 Capital Improvement Fund CIP 705,438$ 705,438$ -$ Library Expansion Project
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental $ 352,719 -$ (352,719)$ Transfer to CIP for Library Expansion Project
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental -$ 20,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 2,458,157$ 20,705,438$ 18,247,281$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 46,216,491$ 52,753,955$ 6,537,464$
Blackberry Farm Freezer – The walk-in freezer at the Blackberry Farm Café is broken and
requires new coils and repair in order to be operable for the upcoming season, which
begins in May 2020. Costs related to this repair are estimated at $6,000. With 435
season pass holders, 19,000 drop in swimmers, and 178 picnic reserv ations, the café is a
critical component of the operation which generates approximately $53,000 in revenue
annually. The replacement cost of the freezer is approximately $24,900 and would have
a similar useful life compared to simply replacing the coils and repairing the current
unit.
Hidden Treasurers - The Hidden Treasurers event at the Senior Center takes in donations
from the community and then in turn sells the donations on the last Thursday in
October. For the past sixteen (16) years, the Senior Center has been using these funds
for the Case Management Program and for the Stay Active Fund. These case
management funds provide vital resources for clients and members by meeting
individual client’s needs, member’s presentations and lectures, and events such as the
health fair. The Stay Active Fund is a scholarship that helps offset the cost of Senior
Center membership, and a class and event to those residents who are in need. Staff
requests the use of the $13,200 revenue brought in during the Hidden Treasures event
to continue to provide resources to resident members and for the Stay Active Fund
Scholarship.
Vallco Town Center – City Council approved the contracts with CSG Consultants, Inc,
Independent Code Consultants, Inc., and 4LEAF, Inc. on February 18, 2020. As a result
CC 03-03-20
767 of 873
12
of the services to be rendered by the contractors and the estimated fees to be received
from the Developer, City staff recommend a corresponding budget adjustment.
The following is a summary of cost proposals provided by the selected firms. The Plan
Review consultants will receive 65% of the calculated plan review while the City will
collect the remaining 35%. The Inspection firm will receive 75% of the calculated
building permit fees while the City will collect the remaining 25%. The negotiated 75%
is substantiated due to the additional administrative support services provided by the
vendor which include, but are not limited to, inspection scheduling, reporting, project
management, and document management.
Additionally, and as a component of the Public Works related inspections, additional
pass-thru dollars will be required to fund a full-time inspector on site. This $2,001,076
estimated portion will be administered through a deposit made by the Developer in
which the City will retain a 15% admin fee.
Over the estimated three-year contract period, total revenues of $32,048,517,
expenditures of $22,057,710, and an increase to fund balance of $9,990,807 are
anticipated. The excess fund balance will be used to fund staffing costs related to the
review, inspection, administrative, and overhead work associated with the project.
Vallco Specific Plan - The City Council took actions in September 2019 to modify the
development allocations at the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. At that time, the
Council directed staff to begin preparation of a Specific Plan for the Vallco Special Area
that would allow for additional housing and further modifications to the development
allocations. Council also directed staff to approach the property owner to determine
whether they would be interested in an alternate development. Total estimated cost of
preparing a specific plan is $1,069,000 and includes $170,000 for legal fees, $174,000 for
community outreach, $150,000 for environmental review, $500,000 for design reveies
and $75,000 for transportation.
Street Lighting – Staff is requesting a total of $105,000 for a master agreement with a
contractor to make unforeseen repairs to the existing street light infrastructure system.
$45,000 of the total request will be used to purchase the necessary materials to
accommodate the infrastructure repairs.
Senior Center Fire Sprinkler System Repair – On December 30, 2019, a fire sprinkler valve
failed at the Cupertino Senior Center. This failure necessitated taking the fire alarm
panel offline and required that the City hire a vendor to monitor that building for fires.
Code requires that the individual performing this duty, termed fire watch (FW), be
CC 03-03-20
768 of 873
13
performed 24-hours per day until the fire alarm panel is reactivated. If FW was not
performed, all programs and classes at the Senior Center would have ceased until the
fire alarm panel was reactivated. The valve repair was completed and the panel was
reactivated on January 14, 2020. The total cost of this request is $42,500.
Traffic Calming – The Transportation Division regularly receives requests from residents
for help in addressing speeding and cut-through traffic. The $100,000 request will
address speeding and cut-through traffic on City residential streets through the
implementation of traffic calming measures. Funds will enable to staff to perform data
collection in the field, prioritize streets for improvements, and construct improvements.
Additionally, this request will increase safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians as
well as the quality of life for the adjacent property owners.
Blackberry Farm Tree Removal – The trail connecting the Stocklmeir Property to
Blackberry Farm has one dead pine tree and one oak tree that has a severe lean to it.
Recently, the tree has been leaning more. The tree leans over the walking path and out
over the 8th hole at the Blackberry Farm golf course. The requested funds will be used
to have a contractor remove the trees that have become a safety hazard. Staff request ed
the services of an on-call arborist to which they recommended immediate removal.
Sport Center Interior Improvements (CIP) - This project will upgrade/modernize the
interior of the Sports Center in three areas; renovate the women’s locker room and
shower, renovate the men’s locker room and shower and renovate the front lobby
counter. The last major upgrades to the building were in 2004 and the facility is in need
of some minor upgrades due to wear - & - tear. This project also includes $170,000 for
ADA improvements required by the Building Code. The improvements proposed will
improve the user experience and attract new users. This project was previously funded
in 2017-18 with additional funding added in 2018-19. This project was defunded on
October 16, 2018 in order to fund the New City Hall and Interim City Hall projects. The
project budget of $1,400,000 was estimated based on the architect’s estimate of probably
costs plus 10% contingency and soft costs to complete the design and manage the
project during constructions. The expected bid date is June 2020 with start of
construction in September 2020. Improvements are expected to be complete before the
increased gym usage in January.
Transfer to Capital Reserve – Staff are recommending a $20,000,000 transfer of excess
General Fund fund balance to the Capital Reserve for purpose of funding current and
future capital projects.
CC 03-03-20
769 of 873
14
Library Expansion Project – As part of the FY 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program
budget, a $5,000,000 funding amount was allocated for the Library Expansion Project.
At the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting, an additional $3,000,000 was
appropriated for the Library Expansion Project. This was initiated via a three (3)-year
interfund advance from the General Fund. For many years, the City of Cupertino has
provided funding for twelve (12) additional hours for the Cupertino Community
Library. The City and the Library JPA have agreed to apportion this funding in FY
2019-20 and FY 2020-21 toward the Library Expansion Project and the GoGo Biblio
Program ($117,000 annually). Accordingly, the City transferred $352,719 from the
General Fund to the Capital Reserve for purposes of funding the cost of the project.
Staff are recommending an additional transfer of $352,719 from the General Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund as well as an increase in Library Expansion Project budget from
$8,000,000 to $8,705,438.
Section 115 Trust (PRSP) – Staff are recommending an additional contribution of
$4,000,000 to the City’s Section 115 Trust (Pension Rate Stabilization Program). The
City established this trust with PARS in 2018 for purposes of 1) maintaining local
control over assets, 2) mitigating impact of large pension cost fluctuations, 3) potential
for higher investment returns than General Fund, and 4) asset diversification. The
trust’s assets are required to be used to pay CalPERS for related retirement costs;
however, at this time, staff do not anticipate drawing down from this trust in the near
future. In 2018, the City made an additional contribution of $8,000,000 and had
recommended funding $2 million annually for five (5) years. With this strategy, the
trust would accumulate sufficient funds to pay the difference between a 7% and 6.25%
discount rate, or approximately $42 million. With a $4 million contribution in FY 2019-
20, the City will be on schedule to address this funding gap by 2037.
Other Requests Not Included in the FY 2019-20 Mid-Year Report
Bike Boulevard Improvements (CIP) – The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies
improvements to enhance and promote safer transportation in the City. Bike
boulevards will provide a network of Class III shared bike routes along local residential
streets, enhanced with traffic calming features to maintain low traffic volumes and
speeds, providing bicycle-friendly alternatives to busy roadways. Improvements
include sidewalk, curb ramps, bulb-outs, bollards, speed tables and roadway markings.
Enhancing bicycle lane visibility improves bicycle safety, facilitates livability and
promotes alternative modes of transportation. Included in the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan ($7,266,000) is $1.4 million for Bike Boulevard Implementation.
The original estimate was based on a conceptual cost estimate from the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan which was based on statewide average costs and did not
CC 03-03-20
770 of 873
15
adequately reflect Bay Area prcining. In retrospect, it does not appear that those costs
adequately accounted for soft costs to design and implement the improvements. In
addition, the Bay Area has experienced double digit escalation per year since those
estimated were prepared. As the project scopes were finalized and the exact nature of
the improvements were designed, it became apparent that additional storm drainage
facilities needed to be included which significantly impacted the cost. The additional
$3.4 million that is necessary to fully fund the project will be included as part of the FY
2020-21 Capital Improvement Program Budget.
Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway Phase 2 Project (CIP) - Phase 1 was anticipated to be
completed from east City limits to Wolfe Rd. and evaluate the performance, driver
reaction, and design. After a suitable evaluation period, staff would then implement
Phase 2 (Wolfe to Hwy 85) and include any and all “lessons learned” from Phase 1. The
estimated cost of $650,000 includes approximately $100,000 for a part-time consultant
project manager to manage the project throughout design. This is the top ranked project
in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. No new bicycle projects are proposed for fiscal
year 2020-21 and as a result, this should not push back or take any other project off the
list. The additional $650,000 that is necessary to fully fund the project will be included
as part of the FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program Budget.
Staffing
The Amended Budget as of December 31, 2019 has a total of 199.75 FTEs. There are no
proposed changes to staffing as part of the Mid-Year Report.
Fund Balance
The City’s General Fund ended FY 2018-19 with $58.92 million in total fund balance. As
part of the FY 2019-20 Adopted Budget, the City projected ending the fiscal year with
$46.63 million in total fund balance. As of the First Quarter Report, the City updated its
year-end projections for FY 2019-20 to $63.21 million in total fund balance, an increase
of $16.6 million due to increases in revenues received and lower expenditures in FY
2018-19. Projected year-end fund balance as of mid-year FY 2019-20 estimated to be
$49.93, a reduction of $13.28 million from the first quarter projections due primarily to a
one-time transfer out of $20 million to the Capital Improvement Program Reserve Fund.
CC 03-03-20
771 of 873
16
General Fund Classification of Fund Balance
Actuals
Year End
Projection
Adopted
Budget
1st Quarter
Year End
Projection
Mid-Year End
Projection
CLASSIFICATION 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2019-20 2019-20
Non Spendable 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.45
Restricted 1.25 9.47 9.24 9.47 14.02
Committed 19.12 19.12 19.12 19.12 19.12
Assigned 9.96 1.98 5.01 5.01 3.23
Unassigned 21.70 27.90 12.80 29.15 13.11
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 52.51 58.92 46.62 63.21 49.93
To date, the City’s outside auditors have not completed their review of the City’s
financials. Revenue, expenditure, and fund balance totals listed in this report are
preliminary and subject to change after a full review by the City’s auditors. City Staff
does not anticipate many, if any, changes to these figures.
Per the City’s one Fund Balance Policy, unassigned fund balance over $500,000 are to be
used in the following order to replenish committed fund balances with any remaining
balances to be placed in the Capital Reserve:
1. Economic Uncertainty
2. PERS
3. Sustainability Reserve
4. Unassigned
Cash & Investments
The City’s cash and investment balance as of December 31, 2019 was $146.2 million.
This comprised 13.2% cash, 14.1% LAIF, 4.3% money market funds, 6.4% Asset-backed
Securities, 22.8% Agency Notes, 1.4% Commercial Paper, 3.1% Foreign Corporate, 0.5%
Municipal Bonds, 2/8% Negotiable CDs, 15.5% Corporate Notes, and 15.9% US
Treasuries. In accordance with California Government Code section 53646(3) the City
maintains the ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six (6) months.
As a result, a certain degree of liquidity is necessary within an agency’s portfolio.
Performance Measures
Updated performance measures that align with government and private industry bes t
practices have been included in the Mid-Year Financial Report. Staff will continue to
provide updates to Council on the performance measures as part of the Mid-Year
Budget Report, including prior year totals and current year results through December.
Attachment C represents the status of the performance measures as of Mid-Year.
CC 03-03-20
772 of 873
17
Conclusion
The Mid-Year Financial Report shows the City is well-positioned to move forward. City
staff recommends adjustments of $46,216,491 in new appropriations funded by
$52,753,955 in revenues. $32,048,517 of the revenues pertain to fees received for Vallco
Town Center and $20,000,000 as an internal transfer from the General Fund to the
Capital Reserve to assist in funding current and future capital projects. If approved, the
City’s fund balance will increase by $6,537,464.
Prepared by: Zach Korach, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services
Approved for Submission by: Deborah L. Feng, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
B – Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20
C – Mid-Year Performance Measures
D – Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Journal
CC 03-03-20
773 of 873
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 20-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 BY
APPROPRIATING, TRANSFERRING, AND UNAPPROPRIATING MONIES
FOR SPECIFIED FUNDS
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government
depends on a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures
within anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, accomplishing City Council directives, projects and
programs, and performing staff duties and responsibilities likewise depends on
the monies available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the balances from the
funds specified in this resolution are adequate to cover the proposed amended
appropriations, and therefore recommends the fund reallocations described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
approve the recommended fund reallocations and ratifies the attached amended
appropriations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 3rd day of March 2020, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CC 03-03-20
774 of 873
SIGNED:
________
Steven Scharf, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
Appropriation
Amendment by Fund
Appropriation
Amendment
Revenue
Amendment
Fund Balance
(Use of)
General Fund $43,758,334 $32,048,517 ($11,709,817)
Capital Projects Funds $2,458,157 $20,705,438 $18,247,281
Total Appropriation
Amendment All Funds $46,216,491 $52,753,955 $6,537,464
Attachment A
CC 03-03-20
775 of 873
In the online version of this report, click on a graph to explore the data.
Background
On November 19, 2019, City Council received an update on the City’s spending plan as part of the City
Manager’s First Quarter Financial Report, which revised the budget to account for encumbrances of
$10,718,669 and carryover appropriations of $35,250,910 from FY 2018-19. In the first two quarters of
FY 2019-20, Council approved $10,463,215 in adjustments which include, but are not limited to: 1)
$2.5 million for Regnart Creek Trail, 2) $1.7 million for labor negotiations, and 3) $3 million for Library
Expansion Project. This resulted in an amended budget of $206,964,945.
Amended Budget
2019-20
Proposed Budget
2019-20
Adopted Budget
2019-20
Amended Budget Q1
2019-20
Amended Budget Q2
Fiscal Year
0.0
100.0M
200.0M
50.0M
150.0M
DollarsPublic Works
Capital Projects
Non Departmental
Parks and Recreation
Law Enforcement
Planning and Community D…
Innovation & Technology
Administration
Administrative Services
Council and Commissions
CITY OF CUPERTINO
FY 2019-20 Mid-Year Report
The following is the Mid-Year Financial Report, submitted by the Administrative Services
Department for the period of July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 for the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year.
It has been prepared to inform the City Council, City leadership and the public of the City’s
fiscal status.
CC 03-03-20
776 of 873
Flow of Funds Chart (in Millions)
General Fund Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance
To date the City’s financial statement audit has yet to be issued and revenue, expenditure, and fund
balance totals listed in this report are preliminary and subject to change after a full review by the City’s
auditors. City staff does not anticipate many if any changes from the auditors.
June
2017-18
Actual
2019-20
Amended Budget Q2
2016-17
Amended Budget Q2
December
2017-18
Actual
2018-19
Amended Budget Q2
December
2019-20
Actual
Fiscal Year
0.0
20.0M
40.0M
60.0M
80.0M
100.0M
DollarsExpenses
Revenues
Sort Large to Small
CC 03-03-20
777 of 873
-$4,277,423.70
Revenues Less Expenses in Dec 2019
-$20M
-$15M
-$10M
-$5M
$0
$5M
Dec 2015 Dec 2017 Dec 2019
$6,439,753.87
Revenues Less Expenses in Jun 2019
-$5M
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
Jun 2016 Jun 2017 Jun 2018 Jun 2019
At Mid-Year, actual revenues are $38.2M and actual expenditures are $42.4M, leading to a deficit of
$4.3M. In only one of the last four fiscal years has the City ended the year with expenditures higher
than revenues.
General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Trends
As of December 31, 2019, General Fund expenditures are $42.4 million; this represents 46% of
budgeted appropriations. Expenditures at the Mid-Year point of the prior three years were between
37% and 62% of year-end expenditures placing this year within range. General Fund revenues are at
$38.2 million; this represents 41% of budgeted revenue. Revenues at the Mid-Year point of the prior
three years were between 38% and 42% of year-end revenues, placing this year within the range.
General Fund Revenues - Mid-Year vs Budget
Updated today
12/2015 12/2016 12/2017 12/2018 12/2019
41.34%
In Revenues of $92,280,986.00 Budgeted through Dec 2019
General Fund Expenses - Mid-Year vs Budget
Updated today
12/2015 12/2016 12/2017 12/2018 12/2019
45.73%
In Expenses of $92,793,240.00 Budgeted through Dec 2019
$38,152,598.53
in Revenues in Dec 2019
$0
$20M
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
Dec 2016 Dec 2017 Dec 2018 Dec 2019
$42,430,022.23
in Expenses in Dec 2019
$0
$20M
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
Dec 2016 Dec 2017 Dec 2018 Dec 2019
General Fund Revenues Less Expenses at Mid-Year General Fund Revenues Less Expenses at Year End
General Fund Revenues - Mid-Year vs Year End General Fund Expenses - Mid-Year vs Year End
CC 03-03-20
778 of 873
$38,152,598.53
in Revenues in Dec 2019
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Other
Licenses and...
Transient Oc...
Charges for ...
$42,430,022.23
in Expenses in Dec 2019
Contract Ser...
Transfers Ou...
Other
Employee Ben...
Cost Allocat...
Employee Com...
General Fund Classification of Fund Balance
The City’s General Fund ended FY 2018-19 with $58.92 million in total fund balance. As part of the FY
2019-20 Adopted Budget, the City projected ending the fiscal year with $46.63 million in total fund
balance. As of the First Quarter Report, the City updated its year-end projections for FY 2019-20 to
$63.21 million in total fund balance, an increase of $16.6 million due to increases in revenues received
and lower expenditures in FY 2018-19. Projected year-end fund balance as of mid-year FY 2019-20 is
estimated to be $49.93 million, a reduction of $13.28 million from the first quarter projections due
primarily to a one-time transfer out of $20 million to the Capital Improvement Program Reserve Fund.
Projected year-end fund balance as of mid-year FY 2019-20 includes $13.11 million Unassigned,
$19.12 million Committed, $14.02 million Restricted, $3.23 million Assigned, and $0.45 million Non
Spendable fund balance.
Recommended Mid-Year Adjustments
As of the mid-year, a few departments are requesting budget adjustments to ensure they end the year
within budget appropriations. The recommended adjustments are summarized below.
General Fund Revenues by Type General Fund Expenses by Type
CC 03-03-20
779 of 873
$52,753,955.00
in Proposal Name in 2020
CDD - Vallco...
PW - CIP - T...
Non-Departme...
$46,216,491.00
in Proposal Name in 2020
CDD - Vallco...
Other
CDD - Mid Lo...
PW - CIP - S...
PW - CIP - T...
Non-Departme...
$52,753,955.00
in Funds in 2020
General Fund
Capital Impr...
Capital Rese...
$46,216,491.00
in Funds in 2020
General Fund
Capital Impr...
$52,753,955.00
in Departments in 2020
Planning and...
Capital Proj...
Public Works
Non Departme...
$46,216,491.00
in Departments in 2020
Planning and...
Parks and Re...
Capital Proj...
Public Works
Non Departme...
Revenue Adjustments by Proposal Expense Adjustments by Proposal
Revenue Adjustments by Fund Expense Adjustments by Fund
Revenue Adjustments by Department Expense Adjustments by Department
CC 03-03-20
780 of 873
Summary
The Mid-Year Financial Report shows the City is well-positioned to move forward. City staff
recommends adjustments of $46,216,491 in new appropriations funded by $52,753,955 in revenues.
Most significantly, $22 million of new appropriations pertaining to Vallco Town Center will be offset by
$32 million in fee revenues. Additionally, City staff are recommending a $20 million transfer of General
Fund excess fund balance to the City’s Capital Reserve for funding of current and future capital
improvement projects. If adjustments are approved, estimated fund balance would increase by
$6,537,464.
City of Cupertino, California
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
View the City Council Meeting Agendas
View the City's Budgets
View the City's Financial Transparency Portal
POWERED BY OPENGOV
CC 03-03-20
781 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: City Managerʹs Office, City Clerk Division
GOAL: Streamline information processing for Council, staff and community members
for compliance with State requirements and facilitate independent and transparent access
to public information.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
City Council minutes for regular
meetings presented for Council
approval by the following regular
meeting 100% 94% 88% 100%
Enabled by…Adopted City Council resolutions and
ordinances processed and scanned to
Laserfiche within a week of Clerk’s
office receipt of final, signed document 100% 99% 97% 100%
Public Record Act requests responded
to by the Statutory deadline date 100% 100% 98% 100%
So that…
Online
information and
updated records
that can be easily
accessed in a
timely manner.
All can fully participate in local government to achieve the community & organizational goals.
Response to
records requests to
comply with State
law of 10 days.
CC 03-03-20
782 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: City Managerʹs Office, Office of Communications Division
GOAL: Promote and increase interest and participation in City services, programs,
initiatives, and projects while building community pride and positive identification with the
City among its residents.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Social media engagement: total number
of followers including City Hall
Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram accounts
23,655 27,074 29,857
10%
annual
increase
Social media engagement: average
number of engagements (reactions,
comments, shares, and clicks) per post
on City Hall Facebook account
87.9 67.2 65.9
10%
annual
increase
Cupertino 311: Average response time to
customers organization‐wide (in days):
Average
Close
Time
7.3 Days
Average
Close
Time 3.1
Days
Average
Close
Time 2.8
Days
Average
Close
Time 5
Days
So that…
Clicks have now been added to the engagement metric, which will bump up the average number.
The performance measure for “Access Cupertino: Average response time to customers organization‐wide” was revised
as Access Cupertino was replaced by Cupertino 311 in September 2017. The target has been revised to “Average Close Time,”
which reflects how many days it took to handle a request.
The Cupertino 311 Application is administered through the IT Department, but each individual department is responsible for
responding to its own requests. Response times are organized by request category.
Leveraging the
communication
skills, knowledge,
and experience of
employees while
also utilizing
existing and
emerging
technologies to
enhance, improve,
and streamline the
communication
process.
Residents have access to timely, engaging, and important information
CC 03-03-20
783 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: City Managerʹs Office, Sustainability Division
GOAL: Implement Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan and General Plan Sustainability
Element to achieve quantifiable emissions reductions, conserve finite resources, and
achieve utility cost avoidance and savings across municipal operations and community partners.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
% community‐wide emissions reduced
from baseline of 307,288 MT CO2e/yr1
15%
reduction
by 2020
(261,195
MT
CO2e/yr)
Initiate and implement all Climate
Action Plan near‐term measures
% initiated
% complete or ongoing
100%
45%
100%
55%
100%
70%
100%
100%
Enabled by…% municipal operations emissions
reduced from baseline of 1,865 MT
CO2e/yr
15%
reduction
by 2020
1 Cupertinoʹs GHG inventoriesx are conducted roughly every 3‐5 years. The next one is schedule for Spring 2019
So that…
2015 inventory: 13.1%
decrease in emissions from
baseline (294,281 MT CO2e/yr)
2015 inventory:
22.8%reduction in emissions
from baseline: 1,440 MTCO2e
An agency
implementing
Council and
community
sustainability goals
to effectively
safeguard shared
resources.
Engaged
community
partners and
volunteers
supporting CAP
implementation.
Cupertino is a thriving City to live, work, learn and play.
CC 03-03-20
784 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: City Managerʹs Office, Economic Development Division
GOAL: To actively pursue opportunities in the areas of business attraction, retention, and
expansion as a means of promoting economic vitality, and strengthening the City’s sales tax
base to support Cupertino’s excellent quality of life for its residents, businesses, and daytime population.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec Ongoing Target
Economic Development Business Buzz
Subscribers
1,568 1,442 1,442 700 in FY 17‐18
Economic Development Business
Workshops & Events 12 16 7 12 per year
So that…
Effective
partnerships and
proactive
Economic
Development
programs to
support local
businesses.
Cupertinoʹs economy and sales tax revenue base are diversified to further enhance the Cityʹs
financial stability and its ability to provide quality amenities to the community.
GOAL: T
CC 03-03-20
785 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Goal: Maintain a safe environment to live, work, learn and play.
So that…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Priority 1 4.14 4.39 3.96 5 minutes
Priority 2 7.14 6.23 6.74 9 minutes
Priority 3 14.36 12.11 12.42 20 minutes
Teen Academy 100% 72% 48% 80%
Citizen Academy 100% 92% 200% 80%
Response time for emergency calls
% programs maintaining minimum
attendance
All members of the
community are safe,
informed, empowered
and supported.
CC 03-03-20
786 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Innovation & Technology
Innovation & Technology
Goal: Provide superior delivery of information and technology services to city employees and
constituents while continually enhancing levels of engagement.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
GIS: Increase Open Data site visits per
month
200 210 180 190
GIS: % of time spent Developing
Applications/% of time Maintaining
applications
Not
Tracked
Not
Tracked
Not
Tracked 35%/65%
GIS: Met Requests within SLA (map,
data, Web maps, Cityworks, schema,
other) completed
100% 100% 100% 100%
GIS: Cityworks utilization ‐ # of assets
Cupertino maintains vs # of assets
maintained in Cityworks. Also the %
increase of work units completed
(WOs, INSP,SRs)
18/25
10%
21/22 ‐
3%
23/20
20%
27/16
20%
Video: Percentage of total video
productions performed vs scheduled
productions 2
455%
50/11
176%
60/34
220%
11/5 100%
Video: Percentage of total engineering
projects vs scheduled projects 2
143%
10/7
112%
9/8
300%
3/1 100%
Video: Total video views on Youtube
and Granicus platforms combined 2
138,723 135,716 51,349
5%
annual
increase
Infrastructure: Percentage based upon
number of scheduled
projects/Number of projects
completed on time
160%
8/5 100%
6/6
100% 3/3
(Jul‐Dec)
60% 3/5
(FY20)
100%
GIS: Increase Property Information
(Internal/External) site visits per
month
369/No
Data 420/383 601/424 610/440
Tools and services
leverage existing,
emerging and
innovative
technologies to
enhance, improve,
and streamline
business and
communications
processes.
Integrated information
services enable
customers’ access to the
tools and information
they need, when and
where they need it.
CC 03-03-20
787 of 873
Infrastructure: Percentage based upon
number of HelpDesk BossDesk
tickets/SLA measurements
99% 99%
99.7%
1114/1117 90%
Infrastructure: % Customer
satisfaction based upon Satisfaction
Rate from BossDesk tickets
100% 99% 100.00%85%
Infrastructure: % of network uptime
(not including planned maintenance)
99.90% 99.80% 99.90%99%
Applications: % of citywide‐enterprise
application project management
performed on time and on budget
96% 95% 95%95%
Applications: Number of website site
visits/Number of site hits
1,573,821 1,615,799 846,389
5%
annual
increase
Applications: Number of support
request for the applications support
per month
**25 20
CC 03-03-20
788 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Administrative Services
Finance
Goal: Financial Stability ‐ Provide a sustainable level of core services that are funded from
ongoing and stable revenue sources.
So that…Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
General Fund fund balance as a % of
budgeted appropriations 55% 70% 64% 35%
Credit Rating AA+AA+ AA+ AA+
So that…
Actual expenditures (% below
budget)13% 10% 46% 5%
So that…
Citizens can enjoy high quality services that meet community priorities.
Human Resources
To create a thriving organization with meaningful careers in public service.
So that…
Measure
FY18 Jul‐
Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
# of Worker’s Compensation Cases 16 12% 10% 0
Total recordable Injury Rate YTD 6.4%4.6 3.80% 0%
So that…
% absenteeism
(% of total annual work hours)4% 2% 2% 2%
% turnover rate 6% 7% 3% 1%
% Employee satisfaction N/A N/A N/A 100%
% Employee participation in wellness
activities 63% 63% 47% 75%
Average # of applications received
per recruitment 40 37 43 50
So that…
Recruitment timeline ‐ # days from
hiring request to offer letter 82 68 83 60
# of employees using the Telework
program 15 16 14 17
% Utilization of full‐service employee
portal 100% 100% 100% 100%
So that…
Citizens can enjoy high quality services that meet community priorities.
Funding allocated to high priority
services (Public Works, Community
Development, Law Enforcement)
45% 48% 57% 63%
Actual revenue vs. budget (within %
budget)4%5% 41% 10%
The City is financially
responsible.
The City can invest in
Community priorities.
The City can ensure a
safe working
enviornment for all
employees
The City attracts and
retains a talented
workforce
The agency builds a
flexible and
productive work
arrangement.
CC 03-03-20
789 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Parks and Recreation
Parks & Recreation
Goal: Create a positive, healthy and connected community.
ongoing and stable revenue sources.
Enabled by…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20 Jul‐
Dec
Ongoing
Target
% Recreation and Community Services
Department customers surveyed who
rate services as good or excellent
97% 98% 98% 85%
% programs maintain minimum
registration 70% 70% 69% 80%
Enabled by…
% change in participants 1 22%‐7%‐3% +1%
1 Decrease due to lack of volunteers to doclass counts.
So that…
Cupertino has an exceptional system of parks and services that align with community values.
# of new programs or events offered 119 105 59 50
% Departmentʹs total cost recovery for
all (direct and indirect) costs 63% 44% 53% 40%
City investment in
quality recreation and
community programs
Improved business
processes to improve
customer experience
CC 03-03-20
790 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Community Development Department
Community Development
Goal: Review and guide development activity to ensure compliance with relevant codes and policies,
and alignment with community values to promote and enhance Cupertinoʹs community‐wide quality
of life.
Enabled by…Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19
Jul‐Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec Ongoing Target
Building permit applications shall be
plan reviewed within 15 business days.
N/A N/A 85% 80%
Customer/Applicants visting the
Building Permit Counter shall be
assisted within 15 minutes
N/A N/A 90% 80%
Planning application reviews completed
by 30 day deadline
Customer/Applicants visiting the
Planning Counter shall be assisted
N/A N/A 89% 50%
Enabled by…
Building permit applications
reviewed/issued over‐the‐counter (OTC)
65% 68% 88% 75%
Average number of days to initiate
investigation of code complaints 1.96 1.35 1.4 < 7
Code enforcement cases resolved
without issuance of citations 92.98% 88.63% 90% 80%
Enabled by…Landlord‐tenant counseling and dispute
resolution cases provided 70 55 14 100 per year
Below market rate rental and purchase
vacancies filled 30 11 14 15 per year
Housing resources and referrals
provided 1040 1040 520 400 per year
Complimentary/courtesy prelim app
reviews completed within 3 4 weeks
N/A N/A 69% 80%
Public Outreach Events N/A N/A 7 12 per year
So that…
Efficient planning
and building
services and
enhanced
customer service.
Effective code
enforcement
services.
Affordable and
Below Market Rate
Housing programs
and public service
grants.
Cupertino is a thriving City to live, work, learn and play.
CC 03-03-20
791 of 873
City of Cupertino
FY 19‐20 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Public Works
Capital Project Delivery
Goal: Deliver capital projects on time and within budget:
So that…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Percentage of Projects completed on
budget
(7)
100%(7/10)
70%TBD 80%
So that…Percentage of Construction Projects
completed on time
(7)
100%(8/13)
62%TBD 90%
So that…
Development Services
Goal: Provide timely review and permitting of privately completed improvements within the
public right of way.
So that…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Respond to complete plan submittals or
applications within two (2) weeks 99% (IT) (IT) 90%
Respond to complete encroachment
permit applications within two (2) weeks N/A 93% 95% 90%
Respond to public inquiries at the Public
Works counter in City Hall within 15
minutes
100% N/A 94% 95%
So that…
So that…
City funds capital
improvement
projects.
Projects are utilized
by the community.
Residents and businesses are assured their community is being improved
by efficient use of taxes and fees.
Public Works
Department
reviews
imrpvoements
within the public
right of way.
Projects are utilized
by the community.Customers expect quality reviews and permitting on a defined schedule.
CC 03-03-20
792 of 873
Dependable Infrastructure
Goal: Timely maintain levels of service to meet community and environment requirements at
optimal life cycle costs.
So that…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Pavement condition index (PCI) > or
equal to 82 81 85 85 90
So that…
Storm drain system: Total number of
storm drain inlets inspected/cleaned in
FY
Roadway regulatory & street name
signs: Repair/Replace within three to
four (3‐4) business days
Sidewalk and pathway:
Investigate/Mitigate trip falls within 48
hours
Respond to reported issues within one
(1) business day: Playground equipment
100%
100%
100%
100%
925
N/A
100%
100%
1068
N/A
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
Respond to reported issues within three
(3) business days:
Streetlight outages caused by
mechanical failures
(Investigated/Resolved)
100% N/A N/A 95%
Number of regionally‐significant
intersections within Cupertino that meet
Cupertino Level of Service goals for
vehicle delay as state in the General
Plan, Policy M‐1.2, reported every other
year.
N/A 100% 100% 100%
Percent reduction of bicycle‐ and
pedestrian‐related injuries over previous
reporting year.
N/A N/A N/A 10%
Annual mileage increase of separated
bicycle and pedestrian paths.
N/A N/A 0.65 1 mile
So that…
The City
consistently funds
infrastructure
maintenance and
safety
improvement
programs
Infrastructure
indicates good
condition; safety
programs are
effective.
Cupertino has well maintained infrastructureand programs that meets the
needs of the community.
CC 03-03-20
793 of 873
Environment
Goal: Protect our natural environment for current and future generations.
So that…
Measure
FY18
Jul‐Jun
FY19 Jul‐
Jun
FY20
Jul‐Dec
Ongoing
Target
Respond to reports of actual or potential
discharge the same business day
95% 90% 82% 80%
So that…
Percent of businesses in compliance
during annual proactive inspections N/A5 93% n/a 75%
Tons of waste entering landfill (does not
include self‐haul or material to landfills
other than Newby Island)
27,493 21,108 10,319 = < 27,000
So that…
Diversion Rates rate
By employment:
By population:
Commercial only:
N/A
21%3
55%5
CY2018
80%
64%
57% (FY)
CY2019
N/A
N/A
58%(FY)
75%
75%
60%
Number of all businesses and
multifamily accounts separating organics
out of 496
144/483
30%
CY2018
266/475
56%
CY2019
306/458
67%
50%
So that…
Number of outreach site visits,
workshops, events and activities to
inform residents and businesses
65 CY2018
126
CY2019
46 150
Square feet of median landscape
renovated N/A 35,875 52,917 12,000
% of street trees maintained within
annual maintenance zones 68% 54% 37.80% 100%
Number of trees planted compared to
number of trees removed
.‐67
+53
=79%
.‐155
+192
=1.24%
.‐82
+95
=1.16%
110%
All new vehicle purchases are to be
hybrid and/or electric only models when
hybrid and/or electric models are
available
100% 100% 100% 100%
So that…
So that…
[1]Proactive inspections are primarily conducted during Q3 and Q4 each year.
[2]Tonnages have only been reported by Recology for July‐October 2018. May‐October 2018 was 11,326 tons.
[3] CalRecycle has a 12 month lag in reporting. Data is for calendar year 2016.
[4] Does not include business donations, back haul, or other source reduction, etc.
City is responsible for
a comprehensive
storm water pollution
prevention program.
Potential pollutants
are stopped before
entering the storm
drain system.
City implements solid
waste collection
services that
encourage diversion
of waste from
landfills.
Diversion of solid
waste from landfill is
maximized, compost
is produced for
community use,
recyclable material is
sold to help offset
collection costs and
methane gas
emissions at landfills
are reduced.
Vehicles purchased
have the least
environmental impact
possible.
Cupertino's urban
forest is resilient,
healthy and safe.
City is responsible for
the maintenance and
enhancement of the
urban forest.
Current and future residents enjoy a healthy, sustainable environment.
CC 03-03-20
794 of 873
[6] As of the end of October 2018.
[5] .For FY18, Recology began breaking out multi‐family from commercial tonnage. Our data for FY18 Jul‐Dec displays the diversion rates for the
multi‐family and commercial sector respectively.
[7] An additional 786 site visits were conducted at single‐family homes to determine cart contents for a pilot project to increase organics collection
of food scraps in the organics cart.
CC 03-03-20
795 of 873
FY 2019‐20 Mid‐Year Budget Adjustment JournalATTACHMENT DFundGL AccountExpense Revenue Fund Balance ProposalGENERAL FUNDS100 General Fund100‐63‐612‐600‐6136,000$ ‐$ (6,000)$ BBF Freezer100 General Fund100‐62‐623‐600‐6135,280$ ‐$ (5,280)$ Hidden Treasures100 General Fund100‐62‐623‐700‐7027,920$ ‐$ (7,920)$ Hidden Treasures100 General Fund100‐73‐714‐750‐06714,650,000$ (14,650,000)$ Vallco Town Center Construction Plan Check100 General Fund100‐73‐714‐410‐440‐$ 22,538,435$ 22,538,435$ Vallco Town Center Construction Plan Check100 General Fund100‐73‐715‐750‐0675,406,634$ (5,406,634)$ Vallco Town Center Building Inspections100 General Fund100‐73‐715‐410‐441‐$ 7,208,845$ 7,208,845$ Vallco Town Center Building Inspections100 General Fund100‐71‐702‐750‐0661,069,000$ ‐$ (1,069,000)$ Vallco Specific Plan100 General Fund100‐82‐804‐750‐0672,001,076$ ‐$ (2,001,076)$ Vallco Town Center PW Plan Review/Inspections100 General Fund100‐82‐804‐450‐407‐$ 2,301,237$ 2,301,237$ Vallco Town Center PW Plan Review/Inspections100 General Fund100‐85‐848‐700‐70260,000$ ‐$ (60,000)$ Street Lighting ‐ Contract Services 100 General Fund100‐85‐848‐600‐61345,000$ ‐$ (45,000)$ Street Lighting ‐ Materials100 General Fund100‐87‐831‐700‐70242,500$ ‐$ (42,500)$ Sr. Ctr. Fire Sprinkler System Repair100 General Fund100‐88‐844‐700‐702100,000$ ‐$ (100,000)$ Traffic Calming100 General Fund100‐84‐813‐700‐70212,205$ ‐$ (12,205)$ BBF Tree Removal100 General Fund100‐90‐001‐800‐902352,719$ ‐$ (352,719)$ Transfer for Library Expansion Project100 General Fund100‐90‐001‐800‐90220,000,000$ ‐$ (20,000,000)$ Transfer Excess Fund Balance to Capital ReserveTOTAL GENERAL FUNDS43,758,334$ 32,048,517$ (11,709,817)$ CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS420 Capital Improvement Fund420‐99‐017‐900‐9051,400,000$ ‐$ (1,400,000)$ Sports Center Interior Improvements420 Capital Improvement Fund 420‐99‐077‐900‐905705,438$ ‐$ (705,438)$ Library Expansion Project420 Capital Improvement Fund 420‐99‐077‐421‐401‐$ 705,438$ 705,438$ Transfer from Capital Reserve 429 Capital Reserve429‐90‐001‐800‐902352,719$ ‐$ (352,719)$ Transfer to CIP for Library Expansion Project429 Capital Reserve429‐90‐001‐421‐401‐$ 20,000,000$ 20,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General FundTOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS2,458,157$ 20,705,438$ 18,247,281$ TOTAL ALL FUNDS46,216,491$ 52,753,955$ 6,537,464$ CC 03-03-20 796 of 873
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: General Plan Annual Report, and suggestions to further clarify General Plan Policies and
Strategies
That the City Council:
1. Receive the General Plan Annual Review Report (Attachment A).
2. Authorize the City Manager to incorporate the list of General Plan amendment suggestions
made by individual Planning Commissioners (Attachment B) into the previous list of suggested
General Plan amendments with the General Plan and Objective Standards 2019/2020 Work
Program Item.
File #:20-7201,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CC 03-03-20
797 of 873
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 3, 2020
Subject
General Plan Annual Report, and suggestions to further clarify General Plan Policies
and Strategies.
Recommended Action
That the City Council:
1. Receive the General Plan Annual Review Report (Attachment A).
2. Authorize the City Manager to incorporate the list of General Plan amendment
suggestions made by individual Planning Commissioners (Attachment B) into
the previous list of suggested General Plan amendments with the General Plan
and Objective Standards 2019/2020 Work Program Item.
Discussion
Background:
State law requires that an annual report, on or before April 1 of each year, be
provided to the City Council regarding the status of the General Plan and progress
in its implementation, including meeting its share of regional housing needs, and
local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing. The law also requires that the report be sent to the
Office of Planning and Research and Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).1 The Housing Element report will be presented to the Council
at the March 17, 2020 meeting.
In addition to the required annual reporting, it should be noted that another
purpose of the Annual Report is to help the City Council identify Work Plan items
to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and that appropriate funding is
available for implementation. The Planning Commission reviewed the General Plan
1 See Govt. Code § 65400(a)(2)(A)-(J). The housing element portion of the annual report must be made
using standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Govt. Code § 65400(a)(2)(B).
CC 03-03-20
798 of 873
2
to prepare this Annual Report on September 10, October 28, and December 10, 2019 and
again on January 14 and February 11, 2020.
Analysis:
General Plan Annual Report
The Commission reviewed the General Plan Annual report and provided suggestions
on formatting and updating the content of the report. Attachment A incorporates the
Planning Commission’s suggestions.
The list of policies and strategies in Attachment A are color coded to identify action
items and indicate progress are as follows:
Items highlighted in green are action items that the City has acted on.
Items in yellow are items that are currently in progress.
Items highlighted in orange are identified as action items, but on which no action
has been initiated.
Items highlighted in grey are ongoing implementation of policies/strategies
through the City’s Municipal Code, daily activities of staff or City programs.
A high-level time frame (“Immediate” (2019-2022) or “Long Range” (2022-2040)) has
been identified for the action items while the ongoing policies and strategies have been
identified as being “Continual.”
City-wide Development: The City controls development via allocations for commercial,
office, hotel and residential development. The available allocations as of 12/31/2019 are:
Development Type
Commercial Office Hotel Residential
Special Areas
Heart of the City 814,670 s.f. 17,113 s.f. 330
Vallco Shopping District 191 389
Homestead 1,093 s.f. 150
N. De Anza 97
N. Vallco
S. De Anza
Bubb
Monta Vista 4,657 s.f. 13,595 s.f. 49
All Other Areas
Other 99
Major Employer 523,118 s.f.
Total citywide Available 823,420 s.f. 553,826 s.f. 191 rooms 1,114 units
CC 03-03-20
799 of 873
3
There is an adequate amount of commercial allocation in the City. The Council, in
August 2019, eliminated 2,000,000 s.f. of office allocation in order to maintain a jobs-
housing balance. The hotel allocation was increased to allow development of the
Cupertino Village hotel in July 2019. The City is currently reviewing another application
to potentially increase the room allocation to allow another hotel at the current Good
Year Tires site (De Anza Hotel).
The City currently has adequate residential allocation to accommodate its 5th Cycle
(2014-2022) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The 6th Cycle RHNA process
has commenced at the State and regional levels. The Draft regional RHNA is
anticipated in Spring 2020 with draft local RHNA allocations anticipated in March 2021.
The Housing Element (6th Cycle) must be completed by December 2022.2 The City will
update other General Plan elements in conjunction with the Housing Element update
(e.g. sustainability policies).
Suggested General Plan Amendments
In addition to the Annual Review of the General Plan progress, the Planning
Commission considered policies and strategies that might benefit from clarifying
amendments. While there was no formal action or concurrence by the Commission,
suggestions from individual commissioners were noted and are presented in
Attachment B.
The City Manager is currently reviewing a list of suggested amendments proposed by
the Commission and the public in 2019, as part of the “General Plan Objective
Standards” item from the 2018/2019 Work Program. It is recommended that these
suggestions be incorporated into that review with a future report to Council.
Study Sessions/Presentations and Other Policy Development
Finally, during this process, individual Planning Commissioners commented on
miscellaneous items which are included as Attachment C. There was no formal action
or concurrence on these items by the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
Depending on the Council direction, there may be action items from Attachments B and
C that may have impacts to the General Fund.
Next Steps
The General Plan Annual Report for the calendar 2019 will be complete upon Council’s
acceptance of this report.
_______________________________________________________________________
2 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-2030_rhna_key_milestones_revised_february_2020.pdf
CC 03-03-20
800 of 873
4
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Deborah Feng, City Manager
Attachments:
A. General Plan Annual Report
B. Planning Commission suggestions on General Plan Amendments
C. Other miscellaneous comments
CC 03-03-20
801 of 873
ATTACHMENT ATopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentBALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.1Land Use and Transportation The City shall focus higher land use intensities and densities within half–mile of public transit service, and along major corridors.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. BALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.2Development Allocation Maintain and update the development allocation table (Table LU‐1) to ensure that the allocations for various land uses adequately meet city goals.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. The City Council recently amended the General Plan to eliminate office allocation and allow residential uses by right within the Vallco Shopping District Special Area. No changes to the development allocation is anticipated at this time.BALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.2.1Planning Area Allocations Development allocations are assigned for various Planning Areas. However, some flexibility may be allowed for transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no significant environmental impacts are identified beyond those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Community Vision 2040.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item.Employee generation for office uses is assigned at 300 s.f./employee; BALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.2.2Major Employers Reserve a development allocation for major companies with sales office and corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies. New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well–being of the city.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. The available allocations as of 12/31/2019 are as follows:1. Heart of the City: Commercial: 814,670 s.f. Office: 17,113 s.f. Residential: 3302. Vallco Shopping District: Hotel Rooms: 191 Residential: 3893. Homestead: Commercial: 1,093 s.f. Residential: 1504. N. De Anza: Residential: 975. N. Vallco: None6. S. De Anza: None 7. Bubb: None8. Monta Vista: Commercial: 4,657 s.f. Office: 13,595 s.f. Residential: 49 9. Other: Residential: 99 10. Major Employers: Office: 523,118 s.f.BALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.2.3Unused Development Allocation Unused development allocations may be re–assigned to the citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when development agreements and development permits expire.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. This is routinely done as projects expire.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 1 of 69CC 03-03-20 802 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentBALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.2.4Neighborhood Allocation Allocate residential units in neighborhoods through the building permit process unless subdivision or development applications are required.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. This is routinely done with project review.BALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.3Land Use in All Citywide Mixed–Use Districts Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed–use districts and economic goals.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Information provided as and when applicants/property owners approach cityBALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.3.1Commercial and Residential Uses Review the placement of commercial and residential uses based on the following criteria:1. All mixed–use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception.2. All mixed–use residential projects should be designed on the “mixed–use village” concept discussed earlier in this Element.3. On sites with a mixed–use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.4. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed–use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on non–Housing Element mixed–use sites.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. This is reviewed with project review.BALANCED COMMUNITYStrategy LU‐1.3.2Public and Quasi–Public Uses Review the placement of public and quasi–public activities in limited areas in mixed–use commercial and office zones when the following criteria are met:1. The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals for the Planning Area, has similar patterns of traffic, population or circulation of uses with the area and does not disrupt the operation of existing uses.2. The building form is similar to buildings in the area (commercial or office forms). In commercial areas, the building should maintain a commercial interface by providing retail activity, storefront appearance or other design considerations in keeping with the goals of the Planning Area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Information provided as and when applicants/property owners approach city and reviewed in conjunction with discretionary project review/approvalBALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.4 Parcel Assembly Encourage parcel assembly and discourage parcelization to ensure that infill development meets City standards and provides adequate buffers to neighborhoods.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.BALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.5Community Health Through Land Use Promote community health through land use and design.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, GrantsIMIn late 2019, Council adopted new limits on storefront signage advertising tobacco sales and a ban on: * Flavored tobacco sales,* New tobacco retailers within 1,000 feet of a school or 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer,* sales at pharmacies and vending machines.The Council requested considering a ban on all vaping products.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 2 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 803 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentBALANCED COMMUNITYPolicy LU‐1.6 Jobs/Housing Balance Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, GrantsCon.Not an action item. The City Council recently amended the General Plan to eliminate office allocation and allow residential uses by right within the Vallco Shopping District Special Area.COMMUNITY IDENTITYPolicy LU‐2.1Gateways Implement a gateway plan for the City’s entry points (Figure LU–1) and identify locations and design guidelines for gateway features. Look for opportunities to reflect the gateway concept when properties adjacent to defined gateways are redeveloped.Public Works – Engineering and TransportationGeneral Fund, Development feesCon.No action is needed at this time. Gateway signs are installed through the Capital Improvements Project or through development review.COMMUNITY IDENTITYPolicy LU‐2.2Pedestrian–Oriented Public Spaces Require development to incorporate pedestrian–scaled elements along the street and within the development such as parks, plazas, active uses along the street, active uses, entries, outdoor dining and public art.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development feesCon. Not an action item.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNPolicy LU‐3.1 Site Planning Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal street that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNPolicy LU‐3.2Building Heights and Setback Ratios Maximum heights and setback ratios are specified in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU–2). As indicated in the figure, taller heights are focused on major corridors, gateways and nodes. Setback ratios are established to ensure that the desired relationship of buildings to the street is achieved.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. The City is undergoing a project to clarify existing language under a ʺObjective standardsʺ work program item.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNPolicy LU‐3.3 Building Design Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with the surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian activity.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon. Not an action item.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.1Attractive Design Emphasize attractive building and site design by paying careful attention to building scale, mass, placement, architecture, materials, landscaping, screening of equipment, loading areas, signage and other design considerations.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with discretionary project review/approval. Objective standards work program item could result in development of objective design standards.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.2Mass and Scale Ensure that the scale and interrelationships of new and old development complement each other. Buildings should be grouped to create a feeling of spatial utility.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Currently implemented via the discretionary design review process, Municipal Code and Specific Plans.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.3Transitions Buildings should be designed to avoid abrupt transitions with existing development, whether they are adjacent or across the street. Consider reduced heights, buffers and/or landscaping to transition to residential and/or low–intensity uses in order to reduce visual and privacy impacts.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Currently implemented via the discretionary design review process, Municipal Code and Specific Plans.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.4Compatibility Ensure that the floor area ratios of multi–family residential developments are compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Include a mix of unit types and avoid excessively large units.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesIMWork Program related to study of development standards for Mixed Use developments underway. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.5Building Location Encourage building location and entries closer to the street while meeting appropriate landscaping and setback requirements.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Currently implemented via the discretionary design review process, Municipal Code and Specific Plans.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 3 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 804 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.6Architecture and Articulation Promote high–quality architecture, appropriate building articulation and use of special materials and architectural detailing to enhance visual interest.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/approval. Objective standards work program item could result in development of objective design standards.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.7Street Interface Ensure development enhances pedestrian activity by providing active uses within mixed–use areas and appropriate design features within residential areas along a majority of the buildng frontage facing the street. Mixed–use development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor dining, main entries, etc. Residential development should include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and porches, open space and other similar features.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ approval. Objective standards work program item could result in development of objective design standards.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.8Drive–up Services Allow drive–up service facility only when adequate circulation, parking, noise control, architectural features and landscaping are compatible with the expectations of the Planning Area, and when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive–up services in areas where pedestrian–oriented activity and design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City, North De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista Village and neighborhood centers.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.9Specific and Conceptual Plans Maintain and update Specific/Conceptual plans and design guidelines for Special Areas such as Heart of the City, Crossroads, Homestead Corridor, Vallco Shopping District, North and South De Anza corridors and Monta Vista Village.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIMUpdate undertaken when directed to at Council discretion as part of Work Program. Plans implemented through project review/approval. Update to North De Anza Conceptual Plan may be presented for Planning Commission and City Council consideration in Winter 2021.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.10Entrances In multi–family projects where residential uses may front on streets, require pedestrian–scaled elements such as entries, stoops and porches along the street.Community Development – PlanningDevelopment FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ approval. Objective standards work program item may result in development of objective design standards.SITE AND BUILDING DESIGNStrategy LU‐3.3.11Multiple–Story Buildings and Residential Districts Allow construction of multiple–story buildings if it is found that nearby residential districts will not suffer from privacy intrusion or be overwhelmed by the scale of a building or group of buildings.Community Development – Planning Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ approval. Objective standards work program item could result in development of objective design standards.STREETSCAPE DESIGNPolicy LU‐4.1 Street and Sidewalks Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemention via land use plan streetscape requirements (Heart of the City, N. De Anza, Monta Vista Design Guidelines etc.)Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 4 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 805 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSTREETSCAPE DESIGNPolicy LU‐4.2Street Trees and Landscaping Ensure that tree planting and landscaping along streets visually enhances the streetscape and is consistent for the vision for each Planning Area (Special Areas and Neighborhoods):1. Maximize street tree planting along arterial street frontages between buildings and/or parking lots.2. Provide enhanced landscaping at the corners of all arterial intersections.3. Enhance major arterials and connectors with landscaped medians to enhance their visual character and serve as traffic calming devices.4. Develop uniform tree planting plans for arterials, connectors and neighborhood streets consistent with the vision for the Planning Area.5. Landscape urban areas with formal planting arrangements.Provide a transition to rural and semi–rural areas in the City, generally west of Highway 85.Public Works – Service CenterGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemention via land use plan streetscape requirements (Heart of the City, N. De Anza, Monta Vista Design Guidelines etc.) and via Public Works policies related to street tree planting.CONNECTIVITYPolicy LU‐5.1Neighborhood Centers Retain and enhance local neighborhood shopping centers and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhoods to improve access to goods and services.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Information provided as and when applicants/property owners approach city and reviewed in conjunction with discretionary project review/approvalCONNECTIVITYPolicy LU‐5.2Mixed–Use Villages Where housing is allowed along major corridors or neighborhood commercial areas, development should promote mixed–use villages with active ground–floor uses and public space. The development should help create an inviting pedestrian environment and activity center that can serve adjoining neighborhoods and businesses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/approval and applicable land use plans (Heart of the City etc.)CONNECTIVITYPolicy LU‐5.3Enhance Connections Look for opportunities to enhance publicly–accessible pedestrian and bicycle connections with new development or redevelopment.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and Transportation.General Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ approval.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.1Historic Preservation Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant structures and sites in order to protect resources and promote awareness of the city’s history in the following four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks, and Historic Mention sites (Figure LU–3).Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Inventory completed. Maintained in General Plan.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.2 Historic Sites Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.Community Development – Planning, Community Development – BuildingGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/approval.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.3Historic Sites, Commemorative Sies and Community Landmarks Projects on Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.Community Development – Planning, Community Development – BuildingGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/approval. Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 5 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 806 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.4 Public Access Coordinate with property owners of public and quasi–public sites to allow public access of Historic and Commemorative Sites to foster public awareness and education. Private property owners will be highly encouraged, but not required, to provide public access to Historic and Commemorative Sites.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/approval.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.5Historic Mention Sites There are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction that have contributed to the City’s history. Work with agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage adaptive reuse and rehabilitation and provide public access and plaques to foster public awareness and education.City ManagerGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. When opportunities arise, provide comments to neighboring agencies regarding this.HISTORIC PRESERVATION Policy LU‐6.6Incentives for Preservation of Historic Resources Utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives to foster the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Resources including:1. Allow flexible interpretation of the zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety. This could include land use, parking requirements and/or setback requirements.2. Use the California Historical Building Codes standards for rehabilitation of historic structures.3. Tax rebates (Mills Act or Local tax rebates).4. Financial incentives such as grants/loans to assist rehabilitation efforts.Community Development – Planning, Community Development – Building; Parks and Recreation – Park Improvement; Public Works – Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Information provided when a project applicant/property information proposes a project.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.7 Heritage Trees Protect and maintain the city’s heritage trees in a healthy state. Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Service CenterGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemention via Strategies LU‐6.7.1 and project review by the Planning Division. Heritage trees within public property maintained by the Street Tree Division.HISTORIC PRESERVATIONStrategy LU‐6.7.1Heritage Tree List Establish and periodically revise a heritage tree list that includes trees of importance to the community.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. List maintained by the GIS division and available on the Cityʹs GIS portal with support provided by the Planning Division. HISTORIC PRESERVATIONPolicy LU‐6.8 Cultural Resources Promote education related to the City’s history through public art in public and private developments.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via public art review/approval by the Fine Arts Commission.ARTS AND CULTUREPolicy LU‐7.1Public Art Stimulate opportunities for the arts through development and cooperation with agencies and the business community.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via public art review/approval by the Fine Arts Commission in compliance with the Municipal Code.ARTS AND CULTUREStrategy LU‐7.1.1Public Art Ordinance Maintain and update an ordinance requiring public art in public as well as private projects of a certain size.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IMOrdinance update completed in 2018. Ongoing implementation via project review/ approval.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 6 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 807 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentARTS AND CULTUREStrategy LU‐7.1.2Gateways Promote placement of visible artwork in gateways to the city.Public Works – Capital Improvements and Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via project review/approval.ARTS AND CULTUREStrategy LU‐7.1.3Artist Workplace Encourage the development of artist workspace, such as live/work units, in appropriate location in the city.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via project review/ approval. One live/work project approved on Foothill Blvd in 2015.FISCAL STABILITYPolicy LU‐8.1 Fiscal Impacts Evaluate fiscal impacts of converting office/commercial ues to residential use, while ensuring that the City meets regional housing requirements.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via project review/approval.FISCAL STABILITYPolicy LU‐8.2 Land Use Encourage land uses that generate City revenue.City Manager – Economic Development; Community Development – Planning;General Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via discretionary project review/approval.FISCAL STABILITYStrategy LU‐8.2.1Fiscal Impacts Evaluate fiscal impacts of converting office/commercial uses to residential use, while ensuring that the City meets regional housing requirements.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via project review/approval.FISCAL STABILITYPolicy LU‐8.3Incentives for Reinvestment Provide incentives for reinvestment in existing, older commercial areas.City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund LRNo action has been taken/directed by the City Council regarding this item.FISCAL STABILITYStrategy LU‐8.3.1Mixed Use Consider mixed–use (office, commercial, residential) in certain commercial areas to encourage reinvestment and revitalization of sales–tax producing uses, when reviewing sites for regional housing requirements.Community Development – Planning; City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Will be reviewed in conjunction with Housing Element update.FISCAL STABILITYStrategy LU‐8.3.2Shared or Reduced Parking Consider shared or reduced parking, where appropriate as incentives to construct new commercial and mixed–use development, while increasing opportunities for other modes of transportation.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. The Municipal Code has shared parking standards which are implemented during project review (implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies via environmental review)FISCAL STABILITYStrategy LU‐8.3.3Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements Consider infrastructure and streetscape improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian–oriented area that meets community design goals.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services, Capital Improvements and Service CenterGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented via the Capital Improvement Program at the Councilʹs discretion/direction.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 7 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 808 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentFISCAL STABILITYStrategy LU‐8.3.4High Sales–Tax Producing Retail Use Consider locations for high sales–tax producing retail uses (such as life–style and hybrid commodity–specialty centers) provided the development is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of building scale and traffic.City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund LRContinuing implementation. Several attempts have been made to identify a suitable location for a Costco. However, one has not been identified. FISCAL STABILITYPolicy LU‐8.4Property Acquisition Maximize revenue from City–owned land and resources, and ensure that the City’s land acquisition strategy is balanced with revenues.Public Works – Development Services and Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implemetation by annual review of fees and services provided. Cost benefit analysis of land acquisition is provided to City Council for its decisions.FISCAL STABILITYPolicy LU‐8.5 Efficient Operations Plan land use and design projects to allow the City to maintain efficient operations in the delivery of services including, community centers, parks, roads, and storm drainage, and other infrastructure.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Will be reviewed at the next Housing Element update and ongoing implementation via project review/approval.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPolicy LU‐9.1Collaboration With Business Community Collaborate with the business community to facilitate growth, development and infrastructure improvements that benefit residents and businesses.City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implementation via partnerships with Apple and other businesses in Cupertino. Apple contributed ~$9.8 million for bicycle improvements in the City in 2019.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.1Economic Development Strategy Plan Create and periodically update an Economic Development Strategy Plan in order to ensure the City’s long–term fiscal health and stability and to make Cupertino an attractive place to live, work and play.City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund IMEconomic Development Strategic Plan adopted in 2016. EDSP action items (Mobile Vendors, Innovation District, Incubators & Co‐working Space Use) implementation ongoing. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.2Partnerships Create partnerships between the City and other public, and private and non–profit organizations to provide improvements and services that benefit the community.City ManagerGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implementation. The VIA shuttle program is one such program. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.3Economic Development and Business Retention Encourage new businesses and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services, add to municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the City’s physical environment.City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implementation via outreach into the business community, collaboration and engagementECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.4Regulations Periodically review and update land use and zoning requirements for retail, commercial and office development in order to attract high–quality sales–tax producing businesses and services, while adapting to the fast–changing retail, commercial and office environment.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implementation via the Cityʹs Work Progam at the Councilʹs direction/discretion.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.5Incubator Work Space Encourage the development of flexible and affordable incubator work space for start–ups and new and emerging technologies.Community Development – Planning and City Manager – Economic DevelopmentGeneral Fund Con.Ongoing implementation via discretionary project review/approval.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.1.6Development Review Provide efficient and timely review of development proposals, while maintaining quality standards in accordance with city codes. Look for a solution–based approach to problems while being responsive to community concerns while promote positive communication among parties.Community Development – Planning and BuildingGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via project review/approval and building plan check.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPolicy LU‐9.2 Work Environment Encourage the design of projects to take into account the well–being and health of employees and the fast–changing work environment.Community Development – Planning and Building, Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Public Works is implementing elements of the pedestrian and bicycle master plans to promote healthier alternative forms of transportation.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 8 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 809 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.2.1Local Amenities Encourage office development to locate in areas where workers can walk or bike to services such as shopping and restaurants, and to provide walking and bicycling connections to services.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation in conjunction with Land Use Element updates and project review/approval.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTStrategy LU‐9.2.2Workplace Policies Encourage public and private employers to provide workplace policies that enhance and improve the health and well–being of their employees.City Manager General Fund Con. Not an action item.REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONPolicy LU‐10.1 Regional Decisions Coordinate with regional and local agencies on planning, transportation, economic development and sustainability issues to ensure that the decisions improve fiscal health and the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businessesCommunity Development – Planning; and City Manager – Economic Development; Public Works – Transportation and Environmental Programs; City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Staff participates in Regional task forces, working groups and advisory groups to ensure local points of view are represented.REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONPolicy LU‐10.2Regional Planning Coordination Review regional planning documents prior to making decisions at the local level.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemenation in conjunction with General Plan updates and project review/approval.REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONPolicy LU‐10.3Neighboring Jurisdictions Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions on issues of mutual interest.City Manager General Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implemetation by participating in Regional task forces, working groups and advisory groups to ensure local points of view are represented.REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONPolicy LU‐10.4 Urban Service Area Work with neighboring jurisdictions to create boundaries that are defined by logical municipal service areas.City ManagerGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. The City works with LAFCO to determine these boundaries. There is discussion about a boundary change to facilitate a new park at the eastern boundary of the City (near Rancho Rinconada ‐ abutting Lawrence Expwy)REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONStrategy LU‐10.4.1Tax Sharing Agreements Consider entering into tax–sharing agreements with adjacent jurisdictions in order to facilitate desired boundary realignments.City ManagerGeneral Fund LRNo action has been taken with regard to tax‐sharing agreements.REGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATIONPolicy LU‐10.5 Annexation Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated properties within the City’s urban service area, including the Creston neighborhoods, which will be annexed on a parcel–by–parcel basis with new development. Other remaining unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by the City Council.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. LAFCO encourages the annexation of all county pockets. Ongoing implementation of this as and when properties are available for annexation.ACCESS TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICESPolicy LU‐11.1Connectivity Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and community facilities. Review existing neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community facilities such as the library.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral FundCon.No action required at tis time. Ongoing implemenation via implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans and during project review/approval.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 9 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 810 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentACCESS TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICESPolicy LU‐11.2 De Anza College Allow land uses not traditionally considered part of a college to be built at De Anza College, provided such uses integrate the campus into the community, provide facilities and services not offered in the City and/or alleviate impacts created by the college.City ManagerGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Staff supports the incorporation of such uses as the opportunity presents itself.HILLSIDESPolicy LU‐12.1 Land Use Regulations Establish and maintain building and development standards for hillsides that ensure hillside protection.Community Development – Planning and Building, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via the Municipal Code and project review/approval.HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.1.1Ordinance and Development Review Through building regulations and development review, limit development on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and steep slopes. Control colors and materials and minimize the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building mass with measures including, stepping structures down the hillside, following natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.Community Development – Planning and Building, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via the Municipal Code rdinance project review/approval.HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.1.2Slope–Density Formula Apply a slope–density formula to very low intensity residential development in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on the foothill modified, foothill modified 1/2 acre and the 5–20 acre slope density formula. Actual lot sizes and development areas will be determined through zoning ordinances, clustering and identification of significant natural features and geological constraints.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via Appendix F of the General Plan and the Land Use Map. HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.1.31976 General Plan – Previously Designated Very Low Density: Semi–Rural 5–Acre Properties previously designated Very Low–Density Residential: Semi–Rural 5–Acre per the 1976 General Plan may be subdivided using that formula. Properties that have already been since subdivided in conformance with the above designation have no further subdivision potential for residential purposes.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. All properties within this category have now sub‐divided. And no other potential for further subdivision exists.HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.1.4Existing Lots in Foothill Modified and Foothill Modified 1/2–Acre Slope Density Designations Require discretionary review with a hillside exception for hillside or R1 properties if development is proposed on substandard parcels on slopes per the R1 and RHS zoning.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via the Municipal Code.HILLSIDESPolicy LU‐12.2 Clustering Subdivisions Cluster lots in major subdivisions and encourage clustering in minor subdivisions, for projects in the 5–20 acre slope density designation. Reserve 90 percent of the land in private open space to protect the unique characteristics of the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts. Keep the open space areas contiguous as much as possible.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation during project review/approval.HILLSIDESPolicy LU‐12.3Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement standards should balance the need to furnish adequate utility and emergency services against the need to protect the hillside, vegetation and animals.Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via application of rural standards maintained by the Public Works Department in conjunction with project review/approval.HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.3.1Grading Follow natural land contours and avoid mass grading of sites during construction, especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas. Grading hillside sites into large, flat areas shall be avoided.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via Municipal Code standards during project review/approval.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 10 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 811 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.3.2Roads Roads should be narrowed to avoid harming trees and streambeds.Public Works – Development Services, Capital Improvements and TransportationGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation via application of rural standards maintained by the Public Works Department in conjunction with project review/approval.HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.3.3Trees Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters and integrate them into the developed site.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemenation via implementation of the Municipal CodeHILLSIDESPolicy LU‐12.4 Hillside Views The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to guarantee an unobstructed view of the hills from every vantage point, an attempt should be made to preserve views of the foothills.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Implemented by Strategies LU‐12.4.1 and LU‐12.4.2HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.4.1Views from Public Facilities Design public facilities, particularly open spaces, so they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan hillside developments to minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open space.Public Works – Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund, GrantsCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation during project designHILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.4.2Development near Public Space Locate private driveways and building sites as far as possible from property boundaries adjoining public open space preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space character and protect plant and animal habitat.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund, Development FeesCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implemantation via the Residential Hillside standards in the Municipal CodeHILLSIDESPolicy LU‐12.5Development in the County Jurisdiction Development in the County, particularly if located near Cupertino’s hillsides and urban fringe area, should consider the goals and policies in Community Vision 2040.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Implemented by Strategy 12.5.1HILLSIDESStrategy LU‐12.5.1County Development Development in these areas should be compatible with Cupertino’s hillside policies of low–intensity residential, agricultural or open space uses. Preservation of the natural environment, clustering sites to minimize impact and dedication of open space are encouraged. Visual impacts, access, traffic and other impacts, and service demands should be assessed in consultation with Cupertino’s goals and policies.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Comments are sent to the County if development is proposed near the Cupertino hillsides and urban fringe area to ensure this is communicated.HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.1Heart of the City Specific Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides design standards and guidelines for this area, which promote a cohesive, landscaped boulevard that links its distinct sub–areas and is accessible to all modes of transportation.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Heart of the City adopted by the Council in 1995 and amended several times (last in 2014)HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.2Redevelopment Encourage older properties along the boulevard to be redeveloped and enhanced. Allow more intense development only in nodes and gateways as indicated in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU–2).Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Heart of the City adopted by the Council in 1995 and amended several times (last in 2014)HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.3 Parcel Assembly Encourage the assembly of parcels to foster new development projects that can provide high–quality development with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. implemented during project review/ approval at the Councilʹs discretion.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 11 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 812 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.4Neighborhood Centers and Activity Areas A majority of the commercial development allocation should be devoted to rehabilitating neighborhood centers and major activity centers with a focus on creating pedestrian–oriented, walkable and bikeable areas with inviting community gathering places. Land uses between the activity centers should help focus and support activity in the centers. Neighborhood centers should be retrofitted and redeveloped using the “neighborhood commercial centers” concept discussed earlier in this Element.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented during project review/approval.HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.5Land Use The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commercial, office and residential uses. Special uses are provided in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.6 Building Form Buildings should be high–quality, with pedestrian–oriented and active uses along the street.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Design guidelines in Heart of the City Specific PlanHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐13.7Streetscape and Connectivity Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active uses and a distinct image for each subarea.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services General Fund Con.Not an action item. Streetscape design in Heart of the City Specific PlanHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐13.7.1Streetscape Provide active uses along the street frontage, bike lanes, sidewalks that support pedestrian–oriented activity, improved pedestrian crossings at street intersections, and attractive transit facilities (e.g., bus stops, benches, etc.).Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Standards related to active uses in Heart of the City Specific Plan, which is implemented in project review/approvalHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐13.7.2Street Trees and Landscaping Create a cohesive visual image with street tree plantings along the corridor, but with distinct tree types for each sub–area to support its distinct character and function.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services and Service CenterGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Streetscape design in Heart of the City Specific PlanHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐13.7.3 Connectivity Properties within a block should be inter–connected with shared access drives. Provide pedestrian paths to enhance public access to and through the development. New development, particularly on corner lots, should provide pedestrian and bicycle improvements along side streets to enhance connections to surrounding neighborhoods.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. E.g. all properties between N. Portal and N. Blaney are inter‐connected with shared access drives. Most properties between N. Blaney and Randy Lane are inter‐connected. Bike and pedestrian improvements required for all properties that develop.HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐13.7.4Traffic Calming Evaluate options on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the pedestrian environment by proactively managing speed limits, enforcement, and traffic signal synchronization.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. City performs ongoing evaluations of speed limits, traffic signal timing and coordination with enforcement efforts.HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐13.7.5Neighborhood Buffers Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting single–family residential areas from visual and noise impacts.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Standards related to buffers in Heart of the City Specific Plan and implemented with project review.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 12 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 813 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.1 Land Use Primary land uses include quasi–public/public facilities, with supporting mixed commercial/residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan.WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.2 Streetscape Street tree planting that supports an active, pedestrian–oriented environment. Street tree planting should provide a connection with the adjacent foothills with trees such as oaks.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and Service CenterGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan and Cityʹs street tree planting policies.WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.3 Gateway Concept Buildings should be high–quality in keeping with the gateway character of the area. Projects should provide or contribute towards gateway signs and landscaping.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented during project review.WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.4 De Anza College Node Buildings should be designed to fit into the surroundings with pedestrian–orientation. Externalizing activities by providing cafeterias, bookstores and plazas along the street and near corners is encouraged.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Staff supports the incorporation of such uses as the opportunity presents itself.WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.5 Oaks Gateway Node This is a gateway retail and shopping node. New residential, if allowed, should be designed on the “mixed–use village” concept discussed earlier in this Element.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IMDevelopment project under review. Project plans available at www.cupertino.org/westport. WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐14.6Community Recreation Node Contribute to the high–quality streetscape with trees, sidewalks, building and site design, and active uses such as main entries, lobbies or similar features along the street to reinforce pedestrian orientation.Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan.CROSSROADS SUBAREAPolicy LU‐15.1Crossroads Streetscape Plan Create a streetscape plan for the Crossroads Subarea that provides design standards and guidelines for an attractive, walkable, vibrant shopping village, where commercial and roadway design encourage pedestrian activity. The plan will include the following elements:*Land use plan specifying the type, intensity and arrangement of land uses to promote pedestrian and business activity.*Streetscape plan that provides for an attractive pedestrian streetscape.*Design guidelines that foster pedestrian activity and a sense of place.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund LRWhile standards for an attractive, walkable and assessible public sidewalk design have been established, no further action has been taken on creation of a streetscape plan for the Crossroads subarea.CROSSROADS SUBAREAStrategy LU‐15.1.1Uses Include in this subarea primary uses such as retail, office and commercial. Ground floor uses shall have active retail uses with storefronts. Commercial office and office uses may be allowed on upper levels. In the case of deep lots, building along the street should provide retail and buildings in the back may be developed with allowed uses. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Currently implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan during project review since a separate Crossroads plan has not been developed.CROSSROADS SUBAREAStrategy LU‐15.1.2Streetscape Primary ground–floor entrances shall face the street. The streetscape shall consist of wide pedestrian sidewalks with inviting street furniture, street trees, pedestrian–scaled lighting with banners, small plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special paving, and other elements identified in the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral FundCon.Currently implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan during project review since a separate Crossroads plan has not been developed.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 13 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 814 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentCROSSROADS SUBAREAStrategy LU‐15.1.3Streetscape Primary ground–floor entrances shall face the street. The streetscape shall consist of wide pedestrian sidewalks with inviting street furniture, street trees, pedestrian–scaled lighting with banners, small plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special paving, and other elements identified in the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.Community Development – Planning, Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral FundCon.Currently implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan during project review since a separate Crossroads plan has not been developed.CROSSROADS SUBAREAStrategy LU‐15.1.4Shared Parking Require shared parking and access arrangements throughout the area, with overall parking standards reflecting the shared parking.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Currently implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Shared parking arrangements exist at the Target/Bottegas site and the Crossroads Shopping Center.CROSSROADS SUBAREAStrategy LU‐15.1.5De Anza Boulevard/ Stevens Creek Boulevard Landmark Secure permanent landscape easements as a condition of development from properties at the intersection of De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevards for construction of a future landmark. The landmark may include open space, landscaping and other design elements at the corners. Land at the southeast corner will remain a publicly accessible park.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Easements exist at the N‐E, S‐E and S‐W corners. Only corner at which this does not exist, though the existing building itself frames the corner is the N‐W corner. Will be implemented with new development at that corner.CITY CENTER SUBAREAPolicy LU‐16.1City Center Node Establish the City Center Node as a moderately–scaled, medium–density mixed–use office, hotel, retail and residential area, with an integrated network of streets and open space.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.CITY CENTER SUBAREAStrategy LU‐16.1.1Uses A mix of uses including, office, hotel, retail, residential and civic uses. The ground floor of buildings along the street should be activated with pedestrian–oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants, and entries. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.CITY CENTER SUBAREAStrategy LU‐16.1.2Connectivity New development should improve the connectivity within the block and with surrounding streets, including connections to the Crossroads subarea.Community Development – Planning; General Fund Con. Not an action item.CITY CENTER SUBAREAStrategy LU‐16.1.3Building Form Buildings should be moderately–scaled to transition from existing taller buildings to the scale of the surrounding area. Taller buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Figure LU‐2 has slope line established and Heart of the City Specific Plan has landscape easement requirements.CITY CENTER SUBAREAStrategy LU‐16.1.4Gateway Concept Buildings should be designed with high–quality architecture and landscaping befitting the gateway character of the site.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Heart of the City Specific Plan has design guidelines.CITY CENTER SUBAREAStrategy LU‐16.1.5Open Space A publicly–accessible park shall be retained at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards and shall include public art, seating areas and plazas for retail and restaurant uses along the ground floor of adjacent buildings.Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.CITY CENTER SUBAREAPolicy LU‐16.2 Civic Center Node Create a civic heart for Cupertino that enables community building by providing community facilities, meeting and gathering spaces, public art, and space for recreation and community events.Public Works – Development Services and Capital ImprovementsGeneral Fund IMCivic Center Master Plan provides guidance on capital projects in this node. Library expansion currently in the CIP Program.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 14 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 815 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentCENTRAL STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐17.1 Land Use Allow a mix of uses including commercial, retail, commercial office and limited residential uses. The ground floor of buildings along the street should be active uses including retail, restaurants, entries etc. Neigborhood centers shall be remodeled or redeveloped using the “neighborhood commercial center” concept described earlier in this Element. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Main Street development completed in 2015. Metropoitan Condominiums built in 2006/2007. Nineteen800 developed in 2016. Three properties owned by Apple Inc. with offices are only ones not redeveloped in recent past.EAST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐18.1Land Use Allow regional commercial with retail, commercial, office and hotels as the primary uses, with residential mixed–use as a supporting use. Retail, restaurant and other active uses are highly encouraged on the ground floor facing the street. In case of office complexes, active uses such as entries, lobbies or plazas should be provided on the ground floor along the street. Neighborhood centers shall be remodeled or redeveloped using the “neighborhood commercial centers” concept described earlier in this Element. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Heart of the City Specific Plan during project review.EAST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAPolicy LU‐18.2South Vallco Retain and enhance the South Vallco area as a mixed–use retail, office and residential district with a pedestrian–oriented, downtown atmosphere.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. EAST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAStrategy LU‐18.2.1Uses Encourage a mix of retail, commercial, office, residential and hotel uses. Provide active retail uses on the ground floor facing the street or outdoor pedestrian corridor with connections to adjacent development. Office sites to the north of Vallco Parkway are encouraged to provide retail uses. However, if retail is not provided, office sites should provide entries and active uses along the street frontage.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.EAST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SUBAREAStrategy LU‐18.2.2Vallco Parkway Vallco Parkway is envisioned as a parkway with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street–trees and on–street parking. The street will connect to a future street grid in the Vallco Shopping District.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐19.1 Allowed Land Uses The following uses are allowed in the Vallco Shopping District Special Area (see Figure LU‐2 for residential densities and criteria and Figure LU‐4 for location of allowable land uses):1. Residential: Permit residential and ground floor commercial development within the portion of the site designated for Regional Shopping/Residential uses in advance of creating a specific plan, at a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density of 29.7 dwelling units per acre by right, with maximum heights as shown in Figure LU‐2. Limited ground floor commercial uses are permitted, but not required, in connection with residential development.2. Non‐Residential: Permit commercial uses consistent with the Regional Shopping/ Residential and Regional Shopping designation. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIMPolicy amended in September 2019 to allow 13.1 acres to be developed by right with housing at 35 du/ac and the rest of the area to be developed with regional commercial uses. Staff directed to initiate a Specific Plan: 1. max. of 1, 500 units of housing for the entire Vallco Shopping District Special Area inclusive of all housing and density bonuses, including incentives for extremely low income household housing and housing for persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, &2. Reduce amount of commercial required to 400,000 square feet exclusive of the Simeon Property.VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐19.2Development Standards New development within th Vallco Shopping District Special Area shall be required to comply with the following standards:Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 15 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 816 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentVALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.2.1ʺTown Centerʺ Layout Create streets and blocks laid out using ʺtransect planningʺ (appropriate street and building types for each area), which includes a discernable center and edges, public space at center, high quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street and building typology. Private streets must be open to the sky. Connections between buildings are permitted at levels above the third floor for public serving uses or for limited walkways (no wider than 10 feet) which may be private.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.2.2Existing Streets Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian‐friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate the connections to Nineteen800, Main Street, and the surrounding areas.Community Development ‐ Planning; Public Works ‐Development ServicesGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.2.3Tribal Coordination The City of Cupertino shall coordinate with applicable Native American tribal representatives following approval of development in the Vallco Shopping District Special Area to ensure appropriate cultural sensitivity training is provided to all contractors prior to the start of ground‐disturbing activities.Community Development ‐ Planning and Building; Public Works ‐ Development Services‐IMSee comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐19.3 Specific Plan Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any development on the portion of the site with the Regional Shopping designation that lays out the land uses, design standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements required.The Specific Plan will be based on the following strategies: Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.1Master Developer Redevelopment of the portion of the site with the Regional Shopping designation pursuant to the specific plan will require a master developer in order remove the obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.2Parcel Assembly Parcel assembly and a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to designating any additional area for residential uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundSee comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.3Complete Redevelopment The ʺtown centerʺ plan should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.4Connectivity Provide a newly configured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards and alleys that is pedestrian‐oriented, connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities, provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also contribute towards a study and improvements to a potential Interstate 280 trail along the drainage channel south of the freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from the project sites to the trail.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.5Open Space Open space in the form of a central town square on the west and east sides of the district interspersed with plazas and “greens” that create community gathering spaces, locations for public art, and event space for community events.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 16 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 817 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentVALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.6Building Form Buildings should have high‐quality architecture, and an emphasis on aesthetics, human scale, and create a sense of place. Taller buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.7Gateway Character High‐quality buildings with architecture and materials befitting the gateway character of the site. The project should provide gateway signage and treatment.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.8Phasing Plan A phasing plan that lays out the timing of infrastructure, open space and land use improvements that ensures that elements desired by the community are included in early phases.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.9Parking Parking in surface lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground parking beneath buildings is preferred. Above grade structures shall not be located along major street frontages. In cases, where above‐grade structures are allowed along internal street frontages, they shall be lined with retail, entries and active uses on the ground floor. All parking structures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with a highquality “town center” environment.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.10Trees Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐19.3.11Neighborhood Buffers Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting singlefamily residential areas from visual and noise impacts.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐19.1NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.1Land Use This area is a major employment node with office, and research and development uses. Retail and hotel uses are allowed on the west side of Wolfe Road. Redevelopment of the retail site at the corner of Wolfe and Homestead Roads should be based on the “neighborhood commercial center” concept described earlier in this Element. Retail uses are not required on the Hamptons site. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.The Hamptons project (on a Housing Element site) approved in 2016. Hotel at Cupertino Village approved in 2019. Building permits for either not submitted yet.NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.2Streetscape and Connectivity Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, and Tantau Avenue should be coordinated with planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters, and street furniture. The campus site should provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area.Public Works – Development Services General FundCon. Not an action item.NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.3Building Form Buildings in the retail and hotel area should provide active, pedestrian–oriented uses along the street. Buildings should transition to fit the scale of the surrounding area. Taller buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area. In addition to the height limits established in the Community Form Diagram, buildings abutting the campus shall incorporate appropriate setbacks, landscaped buffering, and building height transitions to minimize privacy and security impacts.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 17 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 818 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentNORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.4Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Pedestrian–oriented retail and hotel development will support a diverse population of workers and residents in the area. Trail routes, and alternate trail routes to address security and privacy concerns of major employers, shall be developed to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to other destinations.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.5 Gateway Concept Building and landscape design should be of high quality and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north. The project should provide gateway signage and treatment.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐20.6 Neighborhood Buffers Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single–family residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐21.1 Conceptual Plan Amend the North De Anza Conceptual Plan to create a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines for the North De Anza area.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services, General Fund IMAs part of the ʺObjective Standardsʺ Work Program item, this action is recommended in Phase 1. Expected to be completed within 18‐24 months from Council authorization. There are landscape easements required on the west side of De Anza. While setbacks currently exist on the east side with existing developments, there are no regulations that require these. Regulations to require landscape setbacks on the east side of De Anza is recommended.NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐21.2Land Use Primarily office, and research and development uses supplemented with limited commercial and residential uses. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IM See comments for Policy LU‐21.1NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐21.3Streetscape and Connectivity North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boulevard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve school routes from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and provide access to transit routes.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundIM See comments for Policy LU‐21.1NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAStrategy LU‐21.4Building Design Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the street with pedestrian scaled elements and locate building entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve the pedestrian character of the area. Mixed–use buildings should include entries, active uses and gathering spaces along the street.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐21.5 Gateway Concept Building and landscape design should be of high quality and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐21.6 Neighborhood Buffers Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single–family residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IMThere are setbacks and/or landscaping buffers included for development on the west side of De Anza Blvd, but not on the east side. SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.1 Conceptual Plan Maintain and implement the existing South De Anza and Sunnyvale–Saratoga Conceptual Plans.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 18 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 819 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.2 Land Use General Commercial and retail uses with limited commercial office, office and residential uses. Neighborhood centers should be redeveloped in the “neighborhood commercial centers” concept discussed earlier in this Element. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria. Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.3Parcel Assembly Highly encourage assembly of parcels to resolve the fragmented and narrow lot pattern and encourage high–quality development with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.4Streetscape and Connectivity South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Side streets are also envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to ensure walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods.Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.5 Shared Access Since South De Anza is a heavily traveled route, properties in the same block should be connected with auto and pedestrian access through shared access easements to reduce impacts on the corridor.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.6 Building Design Locate buildings and commercial pads along the street with parking areas to the side and rear. Provide pedestrian–scaled elements and active uses including retail, restaurants, and entries along the street. Outdoor plaza and activity area can be located along the street with sidewalk and street trees to buffer them from through traffic.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.7 Gateway Concept Building and landscape design should be of high quality and reflect the fact that this area has gateways from Highway 85 and at the souther and eastern borders of Cupertino.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐22.8 Neighborhood Buffers Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single–family residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐23.1 Conceptual Plan Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead Road Special Area with a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund LRNo action has been taken with regard to creating a conceptual plan for the Homestead Special Area.HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐23.2 Land Use Primarily retail, commercial and residential uses, with some limited quasi–public use. Redevelopment of neighborhood centers should be based on the “neighborhood commercial center” concept discussed earlier in this element. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐23.3 Connectivity Homestead Road is envisioned to become a boulevard with bike and pedestrian improvements and new bicycle and pedestrian crossings at De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. This will provide better access for people moving east/west through the City north of Interstate 280, linking neighborhoods in the western part of the City with Homestead High School, Homestead Square Shopping Center and Apple Campus 2 to the east.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐23.4 Gateway Concept Building and landscape design should be of high quality and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into the northern part of Cupertino.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 19 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 820 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐23.5 Neighborhood Buffers Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single–family residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.No action has been taken to establish these setbacks and/or landscaping buffers for new development. There are very few areas in the Homestead Special Areas that include single family neighborhoods in Cupertino. Sites which are developable that do not have these standards established include the Homestead Square Shopping Center and the Homestead Lanes sites.BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐24.1Land Use Allowed uses in the Bubb Road Special Area will consist of those described in the ML–rc ordinance with limited commercial and residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. A policy to designate the Bubb Road Special Area as an innovation area is an action item from the adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan.BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐24.2Streetscape and Connectivity Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to the tri–school area, parks and services and reduce impacts caused to school and employment traffic.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Bike and pedestrian improvements occuring in compliance with ped/bike Master Plans and funds provided by private developers.BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐24.3Building and Site Design Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the street with pedestrian–scaled elements and locate building entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve the pedestrian character of the area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐24.4 Compatibility of Use The compatibility of non–industrial uses with industrial uses must be considered when reviewing new development.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREAPolicy LU‐24.5 Neighborhood Buffers New industrial uses should provide building transitions, setbacks and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining low–intensity residential users.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.MONTA VISTA VILLAGEPolicy LU‐25.1 Conceptual Plan Continue to govern Monta Vista’s commercial area through the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. The guidelines provide direction for architecture, landscaping and public improvements. Create a Monta Vista Village Conceptual Plan with a cohesive set of updated regulations and guidelines for this area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.No action has been taken with regard to creating a Monta Vista Conceptual Plan, through the Monta Vista Design Guidelines are in effect and continue to be implemented.MONTA VISTA VILLAGEPolicy LU‐25.2 Land Use Encourage the commercial district to serve as a neighborhood commercial center for Monta Vista Village and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed–use with residential is encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to provide small–scale light industrial and service industrial opportunities, while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Current zoning supports this.MONTA VISTA VILLAGEPolicy LU‐25.3Buildings and Site Design Encourage buildings to be designed in a way that promotes the small–scale, older and mixed–use character of the area. Buildings should be located along the street with pedestrian–scale architecture and retail and active uses on the ground floor. Parking should be located to the rear.Community Development PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through existing standards in the Monta Vista Design Guidelines.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 20 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 821 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentMONTA VISTA VILLAGEStrategy LU‐25.3.1Storefront Appearance Commercial and office buildings shall include a storefront appearance to the public street, and shall not be separated from the public sidewalk by extensive landscaping or changes in elevation. Office buildings shall be designed to accommodate future entrances from the sidewalk for future retail uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through existing standards in the Monta Vista Design Guidelines.MONTA VISTA VILLAGEStrategy LU‐25.3.2Parking Commercial properties or commercial portions of properties may rely on public parking on Pasadena and Imperial Avenues to meet their off–site parking needs within the area bounded by Granada Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Orange Avenue, and the Union Pacific right–of–way (see diagram to the right).Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. MONTA VISTA VILLAGEPolicy LU‐25.4Street Design and Connectivity Maintain Monta Vista Village as a walkable, bikeable mixed–use neighborhood with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and sidewalks with routes to the tri–school area. Automobile, pedestrian and bicycle improvements are envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid and with new development to remove street blockages and promote a network of streets. On–street parking is encouraged. Roadway and sidewalk improvements will also improve school routes from the northern neighborhoods to the tri–school area.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. School route and sidewalk improvements being completed through the Capital Improvements Project. MONTA VISTA VILLAGEStrategy LU‐25.4.1Interconnected Access Individual properties shall have interconnected pedestrian and vehicle access and shared parking.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through existing standards in the Monta Vista Design Guidelines.MONTA VISTA VILLAGEStrategy LU‐25.4.2Residential Streets Residential street improvements may have a semi–rural appearance based on the Municipal Code requirements. Safe routes to school streets, or any others designated by the City Council shall be required to have sidewalks and street trees.Public Works– Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.OTHER NON–RESISENTIAL/ MIXED–USE SPECIAL AREASPolicy LU‐26.1 Land Use Retrofit or redevelop neighborhood centers using the “neighborhood commercial centers” concept discussed earlier in this Element. Areas that are not designated as “neighborhood centers” are encouraged to provide commercial uses with active uses such as entries, lobbies, seating areas or retail along the street. See Figure LU–2 for residential densities and criteria.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. These areas include: Tintin Market, Bateh Bros, Foothill Market, 7‐11 at Bubb, Homestead Crossing (near Los Altos), Oakmont Shopping Center and abutting properties, childcare site on N. Stelling. A project has been proposed at Foothill Market and another at the Bateh Bros. site is anticipated.OTHER NON–RESISENTIAL/ MIXED–USE SPECIAL AREASPolicy LU‐26.2Building and Site Design Encourage buildings to be designed in a pedestrian–oriented format. Buildings should be located along the street with pedestrian–scale architecture and retail and active uses on the ground floor. Parking should be located to the sides or rear. Buildings may be one to two stories in height. In some instances, buildings may be three stories in height.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.OTHER NON–RESISENTIAL/ MIXED–USE SPECIAL AREASPolicy LU‐26.3Street Design and Connectivity Create neighborhood centers that area walkable, bikeable areas with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes sidewalks to provide connections to the neighborhoods that they service.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.OTHER NON–RESISENTIAL/ MIXED–USE SPECIAL AREASPolicy LU‐26.4Neighboring Buffers Encourage projects to include building transitions, setbacks and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining low–intensity residential uses.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. No action has been taken on this at this time.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 21 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 822 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentNEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.1 Compatibility Ensure that new development within and adjacent to residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.1.1Regulations Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single–family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.1.2Neighborhood Guidelines Identify neighborhoods that have a unique architectural style, historical background or location and develop plans that preserve and enhance their character. Support and budget for special zoning or design guidelines (e.g. the Fairgrove Eichler neighborhood) and single–story overly zones in neighborhoods, where there is strong neighborhood support.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.1.3Flexibility When neighborhoods are in transition, add flexibility for requirements for new development that acknowledge the transition while continuing to respect the existing neighborhood.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.1.4Late Night Uses Discourage late–evening entertainment activities such as night–clubs in commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow, abut single–family residential development, and cannot adequately provide visual and noise buffers.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.2Relationship to the Street Ensure that new development in and adjacent to neighborhoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by providing inviting entries, stoops and porches along the street frontage, compatible building design and reducing visual impacts of garages.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.3Entries Define neighborhood entries through architecture, or landscaping appropriate to the character of the neighborhood. Gates are discouraged because they isolate developments from the community.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.4 Connections Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that improve access with neighborhoods to parks, schools and local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans and the Capital Improvement project and/or project review.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.5Streets Determine appropriate street widths, bike lane, sidewalk and streetlight design to define the unique character of neighborhoods, where appropriate.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.6Multi–family Residential Design Maintain an attractive, liveable environment for multi–family dwellings.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.6.1Provision of Outdoor Areas Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multi–family residents. Allow public access to the common outdoor areas whenever possible.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.6.2Ordinance Updates Update the Planning Development (residential) and R–3 ordinances to achieve the policies and strategies applicable to multi–family development in neighborhoods.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.An ongoing Work Program item ‐ ʺMixed‐use development standardsʺ could address this.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.7 Compatibility of Lots Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot–line adjustment requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 22 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 823 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentNEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.7.1Lot Size Ensure that subdivision and lot–line adjustment requests respect the neighborhood lot size patterns. Consider revisions to lot size requirements if the neighborhood lot pattern is different from the zoning requirements.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSStrategy LU‐27.7.2Flag Lots Allow flag lots only in cases where they are the sole alternative to integrate subdivisions with the surrounding neighborhood.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.8 Protection Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design, setbacks and other appropriate measures.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented via standards in the Municipal Code.NEIGHBORHOODSPolicy LU‐27.9 Amenities and Services Improve equitable distribution of community amenities such as parks and access to shopping within walking and bicycling distance of neighborhoods.Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IMParks Master Plan currently under review. No further action required at this time.INSPIRATION HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐28.1 Connectivity Improve bicycle and pedestrian environment along Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Canyon Road to improve neighborhood connectivity to services as well as for hikers and bikers accessing natural open spaces in the vicinity.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through Ped/Bike Master Plans and private development.INSPIRATION HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐28.2Merriman–Santa Lucia Neighborhood Allow legal, non–conforming duplexes to remain in the area bounded by Santa Lucia Road, Alcalde Road and Foothill Boulevard.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.OAK VALLEY NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐29.1 Development Intensity Require development intensity for the single–family Oak Valley neighborhood to be consistent with the development agreement that includes the use permit and other approvals. The development agreement describes development areas, intensity and styles of development, public park dedication, tree protection, access and historic preservation. The theme of the approvals is to balance development with environmental protection by clustering development, setting it back from sensitive environmental areas and preserving large areas as permanent open space.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.OAK VALLEY NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐29.2 Design Elements Require buildings to reflect the natural hillside setting as required in residential hillside zones with traditional architectural styles and natural materials and colors. Larger building elements should be scaled to respect the existing development in the surrounding area.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Architectural standards in the approved documents for the Oak Valley development.FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐30.1Development Standards Require all new construction to conform to the R1–e zoning (Single Family Residential – Eichler).Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOODPolicy LU‐30.2 Design Guidelines Encourage residents to incorporate the design guidelines illustrated in the Eichler Design Guidelines.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 23 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 824 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentAVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGPolicy HE‐1.1Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertinoʹs Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units for the 2014‐2022 planning period.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund IMCompleted with identification of Priority Housing Sites in 2014/2015 and completion of rezoning in 2019.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGPolicy HE‐1.2Housing Densities Provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental housing.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con. Not an action item.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGPolicy HE‐1.3Mixed‐use Development Encourage mixed–use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.Community Development – HousingNone Required Con. Not an action item.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGCommunity Development – Planning and HousingNone Required IM Action completed To accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will continue to:*Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA of 1,064 units while maintaining a balanced land use plan that offers opportunities for employment growth, commercial/retail activities, services and amenities.*Monitor development standards to ensure they are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community.*Monitor the sites inventory and make it available on the City website.*Monitor development activity on the Housing Opportunity Sites to ensure that the City maintains sufficient land to accommodate the RHNA during the planning period. In the event a housing site listed in the Housing Element sites inventory is redeveloped with a non–residential use or at a lower density than shown in the Housing Element sites inventory, ensure that the City has adequate capacity to meet the RHNA by making the findings required by Government Code Section 65863 and identifying alternative site(s) within the City if needed.* Priority Housing Sites: As part of the Housing Element update, the City has identified five priority sites under Scenario A (see Table HE–5) for residential development over the next eight years. The General Plan and zoning designations allow the densities shown in Table HE–5 for all sites except the Vallco Shopping District will involve significant planning and community input. A specific plan will be required to implement a comprehensive strategy for a retail/office/residential mixed use development. The project applicant would be required to work closely with the community and the City to bring forth a specific plan that meets the community’s needs, with the anticipated adoption and rezoning to occur within three years of the adoption of the 2014–2022Housing Element (by May 31, 2018). The specific plan would permit 389 units by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. If Land Use Policy and Zoning ProvisionsStrategy HE‐1.3.1Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 24 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 825 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentAVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGHE‐1.3.2 Second Dwelling Units The City will continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of second units.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. 74 ADUs have been permitted through 2019. The ordinance is regularly updated to comply with state law. The City looked at additional incentives to build Accessory Dwelling Units as part of the City 2019‐20 work program.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGStrategy HE‐1.3.3Lot Consolidation To facilitate residential and mixed use developments, the City will continue to: *Encourage lot consolidation when contiguous smaller, underutilized parcels are to be redeveloped.*Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation. *Provide technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to facilitate coordinated redevelopment where appropriate.*Encourage intra– and inter–agency cooperation in working with applicants at no cost prior to application submittal for assistance with preliminary plan review.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Continue to encourage lot consolidation as described in the strategy.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGStrategy HE‐1.3.4Flexible Development Standards The City recognizes the need to encourage a range of housing options in the community. The City will continue to:*Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratio and setbacks, particularly for higher density and attached housing developments.*Consider granting reductions in off–street parking on a case–by–case basis for senior housing.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented via Municipal Code. The Westport Project development currently under review proposes density bonus parking standards and density bonus incentives/concessions.AVAILABILITY OF HOUSINGStrategy HE‐1.3.5Heart of the City Specific Plan To reduce constraints to housing development, and in order to ensure that the designated sites can obtain the realistic capacity shown in the Housing Element, the City will review revisions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan residential density calculation requirement, to eliminate the requirement to net the non–residential portion of the development from the lot area.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredIM Action completed in 2014.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.1 Housing Mitigation Ensure that all new developments – including market–rate residential developments – help mitigate project–related impact on affordable housing needs.Community Development – PlanningBMR AHF Con.Not an action item. Implemented via Municipal Code and BMR Manual.the specific plan and rezoning are not adopted within three years of Housing Element adoption (by May 31, 2018), the City will schedule hearings consistent with Govt. Code Section 65863 to consider removing Vallco as a priority housing site under Scenario A, to be replaced by sites identified in Scenario B (see detailed discussion and sites listing of “Scenario B” in Appendix B – Housing Element Technical Appendix). As part of the adoption of Scenario B, the City intends to add two additional sites to the inventory: Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes, along with increased number of permitted units on The Hamptons and The Oaks sites. Applicable zoning is in place for Glenbrook Apartments and Homestead Lanes site would need to be rezoned at that time to permit residential uses. Any rezoning required will allow residential uses by right at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 25 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 826 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHOUSING AFFORDABILITYPolicy HE‐2.2Range of Housing Types Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller, moderate cost of housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for lower– and moderate–income households including wage earners who provide essential public services (e.g. school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.)Community Development – HousingBMR AHF Con.Not an action item. Hamptons (approved in 2016) provided 30 moderate income level units and Marina (approved in 2016) provided 2 moderate income level units.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYPolicy HE‐2.3Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs Maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units.Community Development – Planning and HousingBMR AHFIMEfforts to accommodate an Extremely Low Income Housing development for persons with developmental disabilities underway.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.1Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. This program requires that developers of office, commercial and industrial space pay a mitigation fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing in the City of Cupertino. These mitigation fees are collected and deposited in the City’s Below Market–Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF).Community Development – Planning and HousingBMR AHF IM A review/ update to the BMR fees in underway.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYResidential Housing Mitigation Program The City will continue to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market–rate residential development. This program applies to new residential development. Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market–Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of seven or more for–sale units must provide on–site BMR units. Projects of six units or fewer for–sale units can either build one BMR unit or pay the Housing Mitigation fee. Developers of market–rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay the Housing Mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. The BMR program specifies the following: a. Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for occupancy is given to Cupertino residents, Cupertino full–time employees, and Cupertino public service employees as defined in Cupertino’s Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.b. For–Sale Residential Developments. Require 15% for–sale BMR units in all residential developments where the units can be sold individually (including single–family homes, common interest developments, and condominium conversions or allow rental BMR units as allowed in (d) below).c. Rental Residential Developments. To the extent permitted by law, require 15% rental very low and low–income BMR units in all rental residential developments. If the City is not permitted by law to require BMR units in rental residential developments, require payment of the Housing Mitigation Fee.d. Rental Alternative. Allow rental BMR units in for–sale residential developments, and allow developers of market–rate rental developments to provide on–site rental BMR units. If the developer: 1) enters into an agreement limiting rents in exhange for a financial contribution or a type of assistance specified in density bonus law (which includes a variety of regulatory relief); and 2) provides very low–income and low–income BMR rental units.Community Development – Planning and Housing BMR AHFStrategy HE‐2.3.2The City has collected $107,226.54 in BMR mitigation fees in the calendar year 2019. A BMR Linkage Fees Update study is underway as part of the Cityʹs FY 2019‐20 work program.Con.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 26 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 827 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommente. Affordable Prices and Rents. Establish guidelines for affordable sales prices and affordable rents for new affordable housing and update the guidelines each year as new income guidelines are received.f. Development of BMR Units Off Site. Allow developers to meet all or a portion of their BMR or Housing Mitigation fee requirement by making land available for the City or a nonprofit housing developer to construct affordable housing, or allow developers to construct the required BMR units off site, in partnership with a nonprofit. The criteria for land donation or off–site BMR units (or combination of the two options) will be identified in the Residential Housing Mitigation Manual. g. BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years; and enforce the City’s first right of refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.3Below Market‐Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support affordable housing projects, strategies and services, including but not limited to:• BMR Program Administration• Substantial rehabilitation• Land acquisition• Acquisition of buildings for permanent affordability, with or without rehabilitation• New construction• Preserving “at‐risk” BMR units• Rental operating subsidies• Down payment assistance• Land write‐downs• Direct gap financing• Fair housingThe City will target a portion of the BMR AHF to benefit extremely lowincome households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities), to the extent that these target populations are found to be consistent with the needs identified in the nexus study the City prepares to identify the connection, or “nexus” between new developments and the need for affordable housing. To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be adequate to mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable housing needs, the City will update its Nexus Study for the Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015.Community Development – HousingBMR AHFIMNexus study updated in 2015. A A BMR Linkage Fees Update study is underway as part of the Cityʹs FY 2019‐20 work program. The City worked on a strategy to preserve Le Beauliue, a low‐income development at‐risk of conversion to market rate units. Technical assistance provided to eight non‐profits/developers looking to developer affordable housing. In 2019, the BMR AHF provided funding to the following affordable housing projects, strategies, and services: •BMR Program Administration‐ 1,040 sought assistance, 14 new households were assisted. •Fair housing services‐ $43,000 to Project SentinelOngoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 27 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 828 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.4Housing Resources Cupertino residents and developers interested in providing affordable housing in the City have access to a variety of resources administered by other agencies. The City will continue to provide information on housing resources and services offered by the County and other outside agencies. These include, but are not limited to:• Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Department.• First‐Time Homebuyer Assistance and Developer Loans for Multi‐Family Development ‐ Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV).• Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) ‐ Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC).• Affordable housing development Community Development – HousingNone RequiredNo action is required at this time. Information and technical assistance continues to be provided by Hello Housing (the Cityʹs contracted service provider) and city staff.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.5Surplus Properties for Housing The City will explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows:*Work with local public agencies, school districts and churches to identify surplus properties or underutilized properties that have the potential for residential development.*Encourage long–term land leases of properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units.*Evaluate the feasibility of developing special housing for teachers or other employee groups on the surplus properties.*Research other jurisdictions housing programs for teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino.Community Development – HousingBMR AHFCon.Housing staff looking at opportunities on an ongoing basis.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.6Incentives for Affordable Housing Development The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These include: *Financial assistance through the City’s BMR AHF and CDBG funds*Partner with CDBG and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.*Flexible development standards.*Technical assistance.*Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax.*Parking ordinance waivers.*Expedited permit processing.The City joined the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium so that HOME funds for eligible affordable housing projects within the City of Cupertino are available beginning federal fiscal year 2015.Community Development – Housing and PlanningBMR AHF, CDBG; HOME; General FundCon.In 2019, BMR AHF and CDBG funds were provided to the following to facilitate the development of affordable housing:•$81,875 to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low‐income housing repair and rehabilitation program •$43,310.20 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for substantial rehabilitation •$120,000 to the Anjali Transitional House for substantial rehabilitationIn addition, the City participates in the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meeting and provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 28 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 829 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.7Density Bonus Ordinance The City will encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for housing developments which include one of the following: *At least 5% of the housing units are restricted to very low income residents.*At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to lower income residents*At least 10 % of the housing units in a for–sale common interest development are restricted to moderate income residents.*The project donates at least 1 acre of land to the City or county large enough for 40 very low income units; the land has the appropriate general plan designation, zoning, permits, approvals, and access to public facilities needed for such housing; funding has been identified; and other requirements are met.A density bonus of up to 20% must be granted to projects that contain one of the following:*The project is a senior citizen housing development (no affordable units required).*The project is a mobile home park age restricted to senior citizens (no affordable units required).For projects that contain on–site affordable housing, developers may request one to three regulatory concessions, which must result in identifiable cost reductions and be needed to make the housing affordable.The City will update the density bonus ordinance as necessary to respond to future changes in State Law.Community Development – Planning and Housing None RequiredCon.Recent amendments (as of Sept. 2019) to state law will require the city to amend the Density Bonus Ordinance. These will be presented in 2020 for adoption. In addition, the City is currently reviewing the Westport Cupertino project, which is utilizing the density bonus provisions including a density bonus, incentives, and concessions.HOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.8Extremely Low‐Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs The City will 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, including persons with developmental disabilities). Specifically, the City will consider the following incentives:*Provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG*Allow residential developments to exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing and the increase in density will not overburden neighborhood streets or hurt neighborhood character.*Grant reductions in off–street parking on a case–by–case basis.*Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME finds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits( LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bond.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.Not an action item. Continue to providing assistance as outlined in the strategy. The City worked with developers and non‐profit organizations to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the City. In addition, the City participates in the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meeting and provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium. As part of the Cityʹs FY 2019‐20 work program, a feasibility study is underway to determine the residential uses on a City owned site located at 10301 Byrne Avenue with the goal of assisting with the development of affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 29 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 830 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHOUSING AFFORDABILITYStrategy HE‐2.3.9Employee Housing The City permits employee housing in multiple zoning districts. Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a residential use. The City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State law in 2014 and will continue to comply with the Employee Housing Act where it would apply.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredIMCompleted in 2014. Zoning Code amended to be consistent with State Law. MAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKPolicy HE‐3.1 Housing Rehabilitation Pursue and/or provide funding for the acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low–, low– and moderate–income households. Actively support and assist non–profit and for–profit developers in producing affordable units.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.In 2019, CDBG funds were provided to the following residential rehabilitation efforts:•$81,875 to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low‐income housing repair and rehabilitation program •$43,310.20 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for substantial rehabilitation •$120,000 to the Anjali Transitional House for substantial rehabilitationMAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKPolicy HE‐3.2Maintenance and RepairAssist lower–income homeowners and rental property owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.The City continues to utilize the BMR AHF and HSG to award grants to assist in home repair.MAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKPolicy HE‐3.3Conservation of Housing Stock The City’s existing multi–family units provide opportunities for households of varied income levels. Preserve existing multi–family housing stock by preventing the net loss of multi–family housing units in new development and the existing inventory of affordable housing units that are at risk of converting to market–rate housing.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.Not an action item.MAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKStrategy HE‐3.3.1Residential Rehabilitation The City will continue to:*Utilize its BMR AHF and CDBG funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include: Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental housing and Rehabilitation of owner–occupied housing.*Provide assistance for home safety repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income–qualified owner–occupants using CDBG funds. The focus of this strategy is on the correction of safety hazards.*Partner with and/or support the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.In 2019, CDBG funds were provided to the following residential rehabilitation efforts:•$81,875 to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low‐income housing repair and rehabilitation program •$43,310.20 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for substantial rehabilitation •$120,000 to the Anjali Transitional House for substantial rehabilitationOngoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 30 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 831 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentMAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKStrategy HE‐3.3.2Preservation of At‐Risk Housing Units One housing project – Beardon Drive (eight units) – is considered at risk of converting to market–rate housing during the next ten years. The City will proactively contact the property owner regarding its intent to remain or opt out of the affordable program. In the event, the project becomes a risk of converting to market–rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested non–profit housing providers to preserve the units. The City will also conduct outreach to the tenants to provide information on any potential conversion and available affordable housing assistance programs. The City will continue to monitor its entire portfolio of affordable housing for–sale and rental inventory annually. The City will monitor its affordable for–sale inventory by ordering title company lot books, reviewing property profile reports and updating its public database annually. The City will monitor its affordable rental income certifications for each BMR tenant. The City records a Resale Restriction Agreement against each affordable BMR for–sale units and Regulatory Agreement for BMR rental units to help ensure long–term affordability. To help further preserve the City’s affordable housing stock, the City may consider providing assistance to rehabilitate and upgrade the affordable unit as well.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HOMECon.Not an action item. In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market‐rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the eight units. In 2019, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the Cityʹs CDBG loan and indicated that the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.MAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKStrategy HE‐3.3.3Condominium Conversion The existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance regulates the conversion of rental units in multi–family housing development in order to preserve the rental housing stock. Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and adjacent areas is less than 5% at the time of application for conversion and has average 5% over the past six months. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con. Not an action item.MAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKStrategy HE‐3.3.4Housing Preservation Program When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multi–family housing, the City will grant approval only if: *The project will comply with the City’s BMR program*The number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing units; and*Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments with more than four units, are mitigated.In addition, indirect displacement may be caused by factors such as increased market rents as areas become more desirable. The City will participate, as appropriate, in studies of regional housing need and displacement, and consider policies and programs to address the indirect displacement of lower income residents as appropriate.Community Development – Planning and HousingNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. In 2016, the Hamptons project was required to provide relocation assistance to the displaced tenants in the existing units. Continue to participate in studies of regional housing need and displacement and consider policies or programs to address the indirect displacement of low‐income residents as appropriate. The Cityʹs Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing document is underway.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 31 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 832 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentMAINTAINING EXISTING HOUSING STOCKStrategy HE‐3.3.5Neighborhood and Community Clean‐up CampaignsThe City will continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean–up campaigns for both public and private properties.Community DevelopmentPublic Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. The City promotes and/or staffs the following events available to the community: • Recology provides quarterly drop off events for bulky items, construction waste, and landscape waste.• The City staffs two annual creek clean ups‐ National River Clean Up Day and Coastal Clean Up Day.• The City also sponsors the Annual Cupertino Garage Sale.SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTPolicy HE‐4.1Energy and Water ConservationEncourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.Community Development – Building and PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented via Strategies HE‐4.1.1 & HE‐4.1.2. The City also adopted Reach Codes in 2019 that will assist the city in its Energy conservation and sustainability goals.SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTStrategy HE‐4.1.1Enforcement of Title 24 The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainabililty Element.Community Development – BuildingNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTStrategy HE‐4.1.2Sustainable Practices The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and non–residential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of ten or more units.To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than ten units to exceed the minimum requirements of the CA Green Building Code. This City will also implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential–focused greenhouse gas emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals.Community Development – Planning and BuildingNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code. The City adopted Reach Codes which will assist in achieving the Cityʹs sustainability goals.LOWER‐INCOME AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSINGPolicy HE‐5.1Lower‐Income and Special Needs HouseholdsSupport organizations that provide services to lower–income households and special needs households in the City, such as the homeless, elderly, disabled and single parent households.Community Development – HousingNone BMR AHF; CDBG; HSGCon.Not an action item. The City has been studying homelessness issues as part of the FY19/20 Work Program. Items identified as needs include hygeine facilities and addressing RV parking issues around the City.LOWER‐INCOME AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSINGStrategy HE‐5.1.1Emergency Shelters The City will continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special needs persons by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the “BQ” Quasi–Public zoning district. The City will subject emergency shelters to the same development standards as other similar uses within the BQ zoning district, except for those provisions permitted by State Law and provided in the Zoning Ordinance for emergency shelters.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 32 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 833 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentLOWER‐INCOME AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSINGStrategy HE‐5.1.2Supportive Services for Lower‐Income Households and Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to utilize its BMR AHF, CDBG and General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBG; HSGCon.In 2019, funds were provided as follows: •CDBG: * $20,935.04 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care * $35,646.16 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS) CARE Program, a community access program • HSG: * $8,000 to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, a long‐term care ombudsman program * $25,000 to MAITRI, a transitional housing direct client services program * $10,600 to Senior Adult Legal Assistance, a legal assistance to elders program * $40,000 to WVCS Haven to Home program, a supportive services and housing resources program for the homelessLOWER‐INCOME AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSINGStrategy HE‐5.1.3Rotating Homeless Shelter The City will continue to support the operation of a Rotating Homeless Shelter program.Community Development – HousingNone RequiredCon.No action is required at this time. The City has previously provided Faith in Action Rotating Shelter with space at City Hall to provide intake and registration for the community each night. The Faith in Action Rotating Shelter was non‐operational in 2019.FAIR HOUSINGPolicy HE‐6.1Housing Discrimination The City will work to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background. medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so that all persons can obtain decent housing.Community Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBGCon. Implemented via Strategies HE‐6.1.1.FAIR HOUSINGStrategy HE‐6.1.1Fair Housing Services The City will continue to: *Provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints.*Retain a fair housing service provider to provide direct services for residents, landlords and other housing professionals.*Coordinate with efforts of the Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing.*Distribute fair housing materials produced by various organizations at public counters and public eventsCommunity Development – HousingBMR AHF; CDBGCon.Continue to provide fair housing services including outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. In 2019, BMR AHF funds were provided to the following fair housing services: •$43,000 to Project Sentinel, a landlord/tenant rental mediation program and fair housing program.LOCAL AND REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy HE‐7.1Coordination with Local School Districts The Cupertino community places a high value on the excellent quality of education provided by the three public school districts which serve residents. To ensure the long–term sustainability of the schools in tandem with the preservation and development of vibrant residential areas, the City will continue to coordinate with the CUSD, FHUSD, and SCUSD.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. All development projects are forwarded for review to the school districts.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 33 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 834 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentLOCAL AND REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy HE‐7.2Coordination with Regional Efforts to Address Housing‐Related Issues Coordinate efforts with regional organizations, including ABAG and the BAAQMD, as well as neighboring jurisdictions, to address housing and related quality of life issues (such as air quality and transportation).Community Development – Housing and PlanningNone RequiredCon.Staff is participating in regional coordination efforts with the upcoming RHNA process with regional planning staff to represent local viewsLOCAL AND REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy HE‐7.3Public‐Private Partnerships Promote public‐private partnerships to address housing needs in the community, especially housing for the workforce.Community Development – Planning and HousingNone Required Con. Not an action item.LOCAL AND REGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HE‐7.3.1Coordination with Outside Agencies and Organizations The City recognizes the importance of partnering with outside agencies and organizations in addressing local and regional housing issues.These may include, but are not limited to, the following:*School districts*Housing providers*Neighboring jurisdictions*ABAG*BAAQMD*Housing Trust Silicon Valley*Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium*Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC)*Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC)*VTASpecifically, the City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities.Community Development – Planning and HousingNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Continued coordination with regional agencies and non‐profits. In additon to the agencies indentified in the Strategy, the city also participated in the following groups: Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators, SV@Home, Housing CA, NAHRO, Grounded Solutions, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, among others.REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy M‐1.1Regional Transportation Planning Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Coordination continues in the Plan Bay Area 2050 meetings at Bay Area Metro (ABAG/MTC)REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy M‐1.2Transportation Impact Analysis Participate in the development of new multi–modal analysis methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However, until such impact thresholds are developed, continue to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation while striving to maintain the following intersection Levels of Service (LOS) at a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours:*Major intersections: LOS D*Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS E+*Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOD E+*De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund IMFY 2019/2020 Work Program Item to develop the Transportation Impact Analysis policies for CEQA and non‐CEQA analysis. New case law (although in a different jurisdiction) has established that LOS standards can no longer be used to analyze delay for puruposes of CEQA. The Wolfe Rd. and SCB intersection is a major intersection in the City.REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy M‐1.3Regional Trail Development Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail.Public Works – Development Services and TransportationNone Required Con.No action requried at this time. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans.COMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.1 Street Design Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation modes including automobiles, walking, bicycling and transit.Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 34 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 835 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentCOMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.2 Adjacent Land Use Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also consider the urban, suburban and rural environments found within the City. Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSStrategy M‐2.2.1Rural Road Improvement Standards Consider candidate rural roads and develop specific street improvement standards that preserve the rural character of these streets. Rural roads would typically feature natural landscaping, no sidewalks and narrow unpaved shoulders.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSStrategy M‐2.2.2Semi–rural Road Improvements Standards Consider candidate semi–rural roads where curb and gutter improvements, and no sidewalks, are appropriate.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSStrategy M‐2.2.3Urban Road Improvement Standards Develop urban improvement standards for arterials such as Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. In these areas, standards may include wide sidewalks, tree wells, seating, bike racks and appropriate street furniture.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSStrategy M‐2.2.4Suburban Road Improvement Standards Develop suburban road improvement standards for all streets not designated as rural, semi‐rural or in the Crossroads Area.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.3 Connectivity Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans.COMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.4 Community Impacts Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of transportation rather than constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or over–whelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives since street closures move the problem from one street to another.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. COMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.5 Public Accessibility Ensure all new public and private streets are publicly accessible to improve walkability and reduce impacts on existing streets.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.COMPLETE STREETSPolicy M‐2.6 Traffic Calming Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce speeds and make them user–friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.1Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown in Figure M‐1.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundIMMaster Plans completed and ongoing maintenance of these plans will be performed. Implementation ongoing through the Capital Improvement Program.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.2 Development Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping and employment destinations throughout the City.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.3Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at key locations across physical barriers such as creeks, highways and road barriers.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 35 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 836 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.4 Street Widths Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connectivity by limiting street widening purely for automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.5 Curb Cuts Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYStrategy M‐3.5.1Shared Driveway Access Encourage property owners to use shared driveway access and use shared driveway access and interconnected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require driveway access closures, consolidations or both when a site is remodeled or redeveloped.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYStrategy M‐3.5.2Direct Access from Secondary Streets Encourage property with frontages on major and secondary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the secondary street.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.6Safe Spaces for Pedestrians Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.7Capital Improvement Program Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.Public Works – Transportation and Capital ImprovementsCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Improvement Program.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.8Bicycle Parking Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle parking.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.9Outreach Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education, encouragement and outreach on improvement projects and programs.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Cityʹs Safe Routes to School program, Sustainability and other mobility programs.WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITYPolicy M‐3.10 Quarry Operations Prioritize enforcement of truck speeds from Stevens Creek and the Lehigh Cement Plan on Stevens Canyon Road, and Stevens Creek and Foothill Boulevards.Santa Clara County Sheriff’s DepartmentGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing implementation.TRANSITPolicy M‐4.1 Transit Agencies Coordinate with VTA to improve transportation service, infrastructure and access in the City, and to connect to transportation facilities such as Caltrain and VTA light rail stations.Public Works – TransportationNone RequiredCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TRANSITPolicy M‐4.2Local Transportation Services Create or partner with transit providers, employers, education institutions, and major commercial entities to minimize gaps within local transportation services.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundIMAll new VIA shuttle service implemented in the City on Oct. 29, 2019. TRANSITPolicy M‐4.3Connecting Special AreasIdentify and implement new or enhanced transit services to connect all Special Areas as identified in Figure PA‐1 (Chapter 2: Planning Areas)Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundIMAll new VIA shuttle service implemented in the City on Oct. 29, 2019. Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 36 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 837 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentTRANSITPolicy M‐4.4Transit Facilities with New Development Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating and lighting.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.TRANSITPolicy M‐4.5Access to Transit Services Support right–of–way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to improve transit as a viable‐way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services, Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.TRANSITPolicy M‐4.6Bus and Shuttle ProgramsWork with large regional employers and private commuter bus/shuttle programs to provide safe pick–up, drop‐off, and park and rides in order to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TRANSITPolicy M‐4.7Vallco Shopping District Transfer Station Work with VTA and/or other transportation service organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for alternative transportation services such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/or other services.Public Works – TransportationNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLPolicy M‐5.1 Safe Routes to Schools Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving the City.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Cityʹs Safe Routes to School program.SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLPolicy M‐5.2Coordination with School DistrictsCoordinate with the School Districts to develop plans and programs that encourage car/van–pooling, stagger hours of adjacent schools, establish drop‐off locations, and encourage walking and bicycling to school.Public Works – TransportationNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Cityʹs Safe Routes to School program.SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLStrategy M‐5.2.1Teen Commission Encourage the Teen Commission to work with schools to encourage year–round programs to incentivize walking and biking to school.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLPolicy M‐5.3 Prioritizing Projects Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Imp. Program.SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLPolicy M‐5.4 Connections to Trails Connect schools to the citywide trail system.‐Connect schools to the citywide trail system.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Imp. Program.SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLPolicy M‐5.5 Education Support education programs that promote safe walking and bicycling to schools.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Cityʹs Safe Routes to School program.VEHICLE PARKINGPolicy M‐6.1Parking Codes Maintain efficient and updated parking standards to ensure that development provides adequate parking, both on–street and off–street, depending on the characteristics of the development, while also reducing reliance on the automobile.Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.VEHICLE PARKINGPolicy M‐6.2 Off–street Parking Ensure new off–street parking is properly designed and efficiently used.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSISPolicy M‐7.1Multi–Modal Transportation Impact AnalysisFollow guidelines set by the VTA related to transportation impact analyses, while conforming to State goals for multi‐modal performance targets.Public Works – TransportationNone Required IMFY 2019/2020 Work Program Item to develop the Transportation Impact Analysis policies for CEQA and non‐CEQA analysis.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 37 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 838 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentTRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSISPolicy M‐7.2 Protected Intersections Consider adopting a Protected Intersection Policy, which would identify intersections where improvements would not be considered, which would degrade the levels of service for non–vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non–vehicular transportation is a key consideration, such as, near shopping districts, schools, parks and senior citizen developments.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund IMFY 2019/2020 Work Program Item to develop the Transportation Impact Analysis policies for CEQA and non‐CEQA analysis.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.1Greenhouse Gas Emissions Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through various mobility and sustainability program ‐ Bike to Work Day etc.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.2Land Use Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT, reducing impacts on the City’s transportation network and maintaining the desired levels of service for all modes of transportation.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationNone RequiredCon. Not an action item.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.3Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ProgramsEmploy TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right–of–way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing implementation.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.4Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs Require large employers, including colleges and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.5Design of New Developments Encourage new commercial development to provide shared office facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling or walking as commute modes to work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITYPolicy M‐8.6Alternative Fuel Charging StationsDevelop a city–wide strategy to encourage the construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/fueling stations.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundLRNo action has been taken with regard to development of this strategy.ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCYPolicy M‐9.1Efficient Automobile Infrastructure Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure by locating appropriate land uses along roadways and retrofitting streets to be accessible for all modes of transportation.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCYPolicy M‐9.2Reduced Travel Demand Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.Public Works – Transportation; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCYPolicy M‐9.3 Street Width Except as required by environmental review for new developments, limit widening of streets as a means of improving traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improvements to preserve community character.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with development review.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 38 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 839 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCYStrategy M‐9.3.1Wolfe Road Overcrossing Consider alternate designs for the Wolfe Road/Interstate 280 Interchange (e.g. from partial cloverleaf design to diamond design) when evaluating the need to widen the freeway overcrossing.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund IMProject to design widening this freeway overcrossing is underway. The partial cloverleaf design is the preferred design alternative. Environmental Review underway.ROADWAY SYSTEM EFFICIENCYStrategy M‐9.3.2Streetscape Design When reviewing the widening of an existing street, consider aesthetically pleasing enhancements and amenities to improve the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area.Public Works – TransportationNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented with the Captial Improvement Program.TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy M‐10.1Transportation Improvement Plan Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to meet the City’s needs.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund IM Action completed. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy M‐10.2Transportation Impact Fee Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee for new development.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund IM Action completed. TIF adopted in late 2016.TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy M‐10.3Multi–Modal Improvements Integrate the financing, design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation to another (e.g. bicycle to bus).Public Works – Transportation and Capital ImprovementsCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented with the Captial Improvement Program.TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy M‐10.4Roadway Maintenance FundingIdentify and secure new funding sources to fund the on‐going routine maintenance of roadways.Public Works – Transportation, Development Services and Capital Improvement ProgramNoneCapital Improvement Fund/GrantsCon.Grant funding routinely used to fund on‐going maintenance to the extent possible.PLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONPolicy ES‐1.1Principles of Sustainability Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning, infrastructure and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of future generations.City Manager – Sustainability Programs; Commuity Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.PLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONStrategy ES‐1.1.1Climate Action Plan (CAP) Adopt, implement and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to: *Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency;*Reduce fossil fuel use through multi–modal and alternative transportation;*Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources;*Increase citywide water conservation and recycled water use;*Accelerate Resource Recovery through expanded recycling, composting, extended producer responsibility and procurement practices; *Promote and incentivize each of those efforts to maximize community participation and impacts; and*Integrate multiple benefits of green infrastructure with climate resiliency and adaptation.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundIM Action completed. CAP adopted in 2016. Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 39 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 840 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentPLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONStrategy ES‐1.1.2CAP and Sustainability Strategies Implementation Periodically review and report on the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element. Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund IM Action completed in 2018.PLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONStrategy ES‐1.1.3Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g. increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these into all relevant plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershet Protection Plan and Energy Assuredness Plan.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundIM Action Completed.PLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONPolicy ES‐1.2Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination Periodically review and report on the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element. Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.PLANNING AND REGIONAL TRANPORTATIONStrategy ES‐1.2.1Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans Update and maintain local plans and strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project CEQA streamlining.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed when local plans are updated.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYPolicy ES‐2.1Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsNone RequiredIMFY 2019/2020 Work Program includes Reach Codes to allow implementation of this Policy.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.1Coordination Continue to evaluate, and revise as necessary, applicable City plans, codes and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State and regional requirements and conservation targets.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed when local plans are updated.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.2Comprehensive Energy Management Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as part of the CAP reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and construction practices.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundIMStaff has been working with a vendor to deploy an energy and water utilities tracking platform. In addition, the City has benchmarked all large facilities in Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Staff is underway with developing an energy management plan and engaging end‐users in energy efficient practices using these tracking and reporting mechanisms.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStartegy ES‐2.1.3Energy Efficient Replacements Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase city energy efficiency achievements (i.e. EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide Green Business Program).City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundCon.This is not an action item and occurs on a continual basis. ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.4Incentive Program Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements and promote incentives from state, county and federal governments for improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund IMFY 2019/2020 Work Program included the adoption of Reach Codes. These were adopted in late 2019.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.5Urban Forest Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 40 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 841 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES ‐2.1.6Alternate Energy Sources Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs and incentives.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES ‐ 2.1.7Energy Co–generation SystemsEncourage the use of energy co–generation systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users‐generation systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsNone RequiredCon. Not an action item.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStratagy ES‐2.1.8Energy Audits and Financing Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial and city facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits to include emerging online and application–based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach events and civic media assets.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.9Energy Efficient Transportation Modes Continue to encourage fuel–efficient transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and van–pooling community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to schools, communter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment, development incentives, and community education.City Manager – Sustainability Programs; Public Works – TransportationGeneral FundIMCityʹs VIA Shuttle program commenced on Oct. 29, 2019.ENERGY SUSTAINABILITYStrategy ES‐2.1.10Community Choice Energy Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund‐Action Completed.SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSPolicy ES‐3.1Green Building Design Set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient building.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral Fund‐Action Completed. Implemented through the Municipal Code.SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSStrategy ES‐3.1.1Green Building Program Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection and building design.Community Development – Building and PlanningGeneral FundIMSustainability division staff has reviewed the existing Green Building ordinance and found it to be consistent with the orginial intent and still relevant for Cupertino. The Council adopted a reach code ordinance for newly constructed structures that would enhance the existing ordinance for low‐carbon buildings and enhancing electric vehicle charging requirements.SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSStrategy ES‐3.1.2Staff Training Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g. Green Point Rater, LEED Accredited Professional).City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundCon. No an action item.SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSStrategy ES‐3.1.3Green Building Informational Seminars Conduct and participate in Green Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 41 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 842 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSStrategy ES‐3.1.4Green Building Demonstration Pursue municipal facility retrofits through a Green Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve third–party certification criteria (e.g. LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with the annual CIP review.AIR QUALITYPolicy ES‐4.1New Development Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and air quality impacts that affect new development.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramNone Required Con. Implement with Strategies ES‐4.1.1 and ES‐4.1.2AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.1.1Toxic Air Contaminants Continue to review projects for potential generation of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with BAAQMD on controls needed are uncertain.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review. All projects must comply with the basic BAAQMD controls and if project environmental review demands it, with the enhanced BAAQMD controls.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.1.2Dust Control Continue to require water application to non–polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the construction period.Community Development – Building; Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement ProgramNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.1.3Planning Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – TransportationNone RequiredIMFY 2019/2020 Work Program item to develop Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policies will support this strategy. VMT policies will provide the City with additional tools to address carbon emissions from transportation, and align with regional Climate Action Planning efforts.AIR QUALITYPolicy ES‐4.2 Existing Development Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredIMSustainability division is promoting regional programs to incentivize switching from gas to electric appliances, which directly reduces air quality impacts of natural gas combustion in homes and businesses. AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.2.1Public Education Program Establish a citywide public education program providing information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” high–emissions days.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundCon.Spare the Air alerts sent out and posted on City website. Cityʹs VIA Shuttle program to commence on Oct. 29, 2019.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.2.2Home Occupations Review and consider expanding the allowable home–based businesses in residential zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund LRNo action has been taken with regard to this strategy.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 42 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 843 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentAIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.2.3Tree Planting in Private Development Review and enhance the City’s tree planting and landscaping program and requirements for private development to reduce air pollution levels.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund LRNo action has been taken with regard to this strategy.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.2.4Fuel–efficient Vehicles and Use Prioritize the purchase, replacement and on–going use of fuel–efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.Public Works – Service CenterGeneral FundCon.Public Works looks to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with hybrids or electric vehicles, and implements elements of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 56% of eligible city vehicles have been converted to electric or hybrid drives.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.2.5Point Sources of Emissions Continue to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to monitor emissions from identified point sources that impact the community. In addition, for sources not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the applicable regulatory authority to encourage reduction of emissions and dust from the point source.City Manager – SustainabilityNone RequiredCon.Ongoing monitoring for the Lehigh Plant being conducted by BAAQMD.AIR QUALITYPolicy ES‐4.3Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces Discourage high pollution fireplace use.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Implement with Strategies ES‐4.3.1 and ES‐4.3.2. City Council has adopted an all‐electric building reach code for new construction, which would directly reduce air quality impacts associated with combustion of natural gas in new buildings, including fireplaces.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.3.1Education Continue to make BAAQMD literature on reducing pollution from fireplace use available.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con. Not an action item.AIR QUALITYStrategy ES‐4.3.2FireplacesContinue to prohibit new wood–burning fireplaces, except EPA certified wood stoves as allowed by the Building Code.Community Development – BuildingNone Required Con.Sustainability commission has recommended an all‐electric building reach code for new construction, which would directly reduce air quality impacts associated with combustion of natural gas in new buildings, including fireplaces.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.1Urban Ecosystem Manage the public and private development to ensure the protection and enhancement of its urban ecosystem.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Park Improvement; Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implement with underlying strategies.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 43 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 844 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentURBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.1.1Landscaping Ensure that the City’s tree planting, landscaping and open space policies enhance the urban ecosystem by encouraging medians, pedestrian–crossing curb–extensions planting that is native, drought–tolerant, treats stormwater and enhance urban plant, aquatic and animal resources in both, private and public development.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program, Service Center, Park Improvement, Environmental Programs, and Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.1.2Built Environment Ensure that sustainable landscaping design is incorporated in the development of City facilities, parks and private projects with the inclusion of measures such as tree protection, stormwater treatment and planting of native, drought tolerant landscaping that is beneficial to the environment.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program, Service Center Park Improvement, and Development Services; Community Development – PlanningCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review. The Cityʹs Municipal Code and State standards contain measures for water‐efficient landscaping and other sustainabile landscaping measures. URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.2Development Near Sensitive Areas Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plan approved prior to development.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.2.1Riparian Corridor Protection Require the protection of riparian corridors through the development approval process.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.3Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation Preserve and enhance existing natural vegetation, landscaping features and open space when new development is proposed within existing natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Park ImprovementNone Required/ Capital Improvement ProgramCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.3.1Native Plants Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest resistant, non–invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain.Public Works – Environmental Programs; Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code. The Cityʹs demonstration garden at City Hall is an educational resource for citizens. Sustainability division staff also promotes regional incentive programs to remove turf and replace with native landscaped alternatives.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 44 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 845 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentURBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.3.2Hillsides Minimize lawn area in the hillsides.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.4Hillside Wildlife Migration Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for migration of wild animals.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.5Recreation and Natural Vegetation Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible and appropriate with preserving natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking and camping.Public Works – Park Improvement, Parks and Recreation ‐ Business Services and Outdoor RecreationNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Improvement Program and the Municipal Code.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSPolicy ES‐5.6 Recreation and Wildlife Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreation and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern.Community Development – Planning None RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.6.1Creek and Water Course Identification Require identification of creeks, water courses and riparian areas on site plans and require that they be protected from adjacent development.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.URBAN AND RURAL ECOSYSTEMSStrategy ES‐5.6.2Trail Easements Consider requiring easements for trail linkages if analysis determines that they are needed.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.MINERAL RESOURCESPolicy ES‐6.1 Mineral Resource Areas Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County to ensure that plans for restoration and mining operations at Lehigh Hanson and Stevens Creek quarries consider environmental impacts and mitigations.City Manager; Public WorksNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Comments and review conducted as and when projects are proposed.MINERAL RESOURCESStrategy ES‐6.1.1Public Participation Encourage Santa Clara County to engage with the affected neighborhoods when considering changes to restoration plans and mineral extraction activity.City ManagerNone Required Con.Not an action item. Comments and review conducted as and when projects are proposed.MINERAL RESOURCESStrategy ES‐6.1.2Recreation in Depleted Mining Areas Consider designating abandoned quarries for passive recreation to enhance plant and wildlife habitat and rehabilitate the land.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.WATERPolicy ES‐7.1Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems In public and private development use Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology, minimizing grading and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems.Public Works – Development Services, Capital Improvement Program and Environmental ProgramsGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 45 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 846 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWATERStrategy ES‐7.1.1Public and Private Development Plans Continue to require topographical information; identification of creeks, streams and drainage areas; and grading plans with development proposals to ensure protection and efficient use of water resources.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.WATERPolicy ES‐7.2Reduction of Impervious Surfaces Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts resulting from development and use Low Impact Development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.WATERStrategy ES‐7.2.1Lot Coverage Consider updating lot coverage requirements to include paved surfaces such as driveways and on–grade impervious patios to incentivize the construction of pervious surfaces.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsGeneral FundLRNo action has been taken with regard to this strategy. City will be working on a program to incentivize removal of impervious pavement on private property.The 2019 California Green Building Standards, as well as Cupertinoʹs local green building ordinance contains measures that limit the amount of impervious surface area for projects.WATERStrategy ES‐7.2.2Pervious Walkways and DrivewaysEncourage the use of pervious materials for walkways and driveways. If used on public and quasi‐public property, mobility and access for the disabled should take precedence.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review. WATERStrategy ES‐7.2.3Maximize Infiltration Minimize impervious surface areas, and maximize on–site filtration and the use of on–site retention facilities.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code and C.3 requirementsWATERPolicy ES‐7.3Pollution and Flow Impacts Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are reduced through development review and voluntary efforts.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.WATERStrategy ES‐7.3.1Development Review Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment systems and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and flows.Public Works – Development Services, Capital Improvement Program and Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.WATERStrategy ES‐7.3.2Creek Clean UpEncourage volunteer organizations to help clean creek beds to reduce pollution and help return waterways to their natural state.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con.Not an action item. Volunteer creek clean up activities organized WATERPolicy ES‐7.4Watershed Based PlanningReview long–term plans and development projects to ensure good stewardship of watersheds.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con.Implement through Strategies ES‐7.4.1, ES‐7.4.2 and ES‐7.4.3Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 46 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 847 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWATERStrategy ES‐7.4.1Storm Drainage Master Plan Develop and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan which identifies facilities needed to prevent “10–year” event street flooding and “100–year” event structure flooding and integrate green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs in a cost effective manner.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsGeneral FundStorm Drainage Master Plan updated Jan 2019. Projects identified in the Master Plan to be proposed as Capital Imp. Projects for consideration on an ongoing basis.WATERStrategy ES‐7.4.2Watershed Management Plans Work with other agencies to develop broader Watershed Management Plans to model and control the City’s hydrology.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con. Not an action item. Onging coordination.WATERStrategy ES‐7.4.3DevelopmentReview development plans to ensure that projects are examined in the context of impacts on the entire watershed, in order to comply with the City’s non‐point source Municipal Regional Permit.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.WATERPolicy ES‐7.5Groundwater Recharge SitesSupport the SCVWD efforts to find and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino and provide public recreation where possible.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WATERPolicy ES‐7.6 Other Water Sources Encourage the research of other water sources, including water reclamation.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone RequiredLRCity has been working with SCVWD regarding the expansion of reclaimed water systems through Cupertino.WATERPolicy ES‐7.7Industrial Water RecyclingEncourage industrial projects in cooperation with the Cupertino Sanitary District, to have long–term conservation measures, including recycling equipment for manufacturing and water supplies in the plant.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsNone Required Con. Not an action item.WATERPolicy ES‐7.8 Natural Water Courses Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Development ServicesCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.WATERStrategy ES‐7.8.1Inter–Agency Coordination Work with the SCVWD and other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by use of flow increase mitigation measures, such as hydromofication controls as established by the Municipal Regional Permit.Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination and implementation through the Municipal Code.WATERPolicy ES‐7.9Inter–Agency Coordination for Water Conservation Continue to coordinate citywide water conservation and regional water supply problem solving efforts with the SCVWD, SJWC and CALWater.Public Works – Environmental Programs; City Manager – SustainabilityNone RequiredCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WATERStratey ES‐7.9.1Water Conservation Measures Implement water conservation measures and encourage the implementation of voluntary water conservation measures from the City’s water retailers and SCVWD.Public Works – Environmental Programs; City Manager – Sustainability, Community Development – PlanningGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing education/ coordination.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 47 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 848 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWATERPolicy ES‐7.10Public Education Regarding Resource Conservation Provide public information regarding resource conservation.Public Works – Environmental Programs; City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing education/ coordination.WATERPolicy ES‐7.10.1 Outreach Continue to send educational information and notices to households and businesses with water prohibitions, water allocations and conservation tips. Continue to offer featured articles in the Cupertino Scene and Cupertino Courier. Consider providing Public Service Announcements on the City’s Channel and Cupertino Radio.Public Works – Environmental Programs; City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing education/ coordination.WATERPolicy ES‐7.10.2Demonstration Gardens Consider including water–wise demonstration gardens in some parks where feasible as they are re–landscaped or improved using drought tolerant native and non–invasive, and non–native plants.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program, Environmental Programs, and Service CenterCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing education/ coordination. The Cityʹs demonstration garden at City Hall is an educational resource for citizens. The garden also saves the City significant water and maintenance expense. A ribbon cutting was hosted at City Hall in August 2019, and an online portal has been created to bolster the educational value of this resource. www.cupertino.org/demogarden. Sustainability division staff also promotes regional incentive programs to remove turf and replace with native landscaped alternatives. WATERPolicy ES‐7.11Water Conservation and Demand Reduction Measures Promote efficient use of water throughout the City in order to meet State and regional water use reduction targets.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Service Center; City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral FundCon.Ongoing implementation of State and Regional intitatives regarding water conservation, as well as education/ coordination.WATERStrategy ES‐7.11.1Urban Water Management Plan Collaborate with water retailers serving the City in the preparation of their Urban Water Management Plan, including water conservation strategies and programs.Public Works – Environmental Programs, Service CenterNone RequiredCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WATERSrategy ES‐7.11.2Water Conservation Standards Comply with State water conservation standards by either adopting the State standards or alternate standards that are equally efficient.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Service Center; Community Development – BuildingGeneral FundIMAction completed. Municipal Code amended to meet State standards/ equivalent in 2016.The City of Cupertino adopted the 2019 update to the California Green Building Standards code, which contains mandatory measures for water conservation both inside buildings and in exterior landscaped areas. WATERStrategy ES‐7.11.3Recycled Water System Continue to work with water retailers to promote and expand the availability of recycled water in the City for public and private use.Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. City has been working with SCVWD regarding the expansion of reclaimed water systems through Cupertino.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 48 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 849 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentWATERStrategy ES‐7.11.4Recycled Water in Projects Encourage and promote the use of recycled water in public and private buildings, open space and streetscape planting.Public Works – Development Services, Capital Improvement Program and Park ImprovementNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.WATERStrategy ES‐7.11.5On–site Recycled Water Encourage on‐site water recycling including rainwater harvesting and gray water use.Public Works – Development Services, Environmental Services, Capital Improvement Program and Park Improvement; City Manager – Sustainability Programs None Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.WATERStrategy ES‐7.11.6Water Conservation Programs Benchmark and continue to track the City’s public and private municipal water use to ensure ongoing accountability and as a means of informing prioritization of future agency water conservation projects.City Manager – Sustainability ProgramsGeneral FundCon.In 2019, an audit on all municipal water meters completed. Consumption being tracked in a cloud‐based utility management analytics platform which provides benchmarking, reporting, and analysis of water use by municipal facilities at the meter level. These reports will support future conservation activities and measure their impact. Public Works staff utilized the platform in 2019 to identify a $25,000 water billing error that was corrected with funds returning back to the City.WATERStrategy ES‐7.11.7Green Business Certification and Water Conservation Continue to support the City’s Green Business Certification goals of long–term water conservation within City facilities, vegetated stormwater infiltration systems, parks and medians, including installation of low–flow toilets and showers, parks, installation of automatic shut–off valves in lavatories and sinks and water efficient outdoor irrigation.Public Works – Environmental Services, Service Center, Capital Improvement Program, City Manager – Sustainability Programs, Community DevelopmentGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing implementation through the Capital Improvement Program and Development Review.REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy HS ‐ 1.1Regional Hazard Risk Reduction PlanningCoordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to implement the Multi‐Juridictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara County. City Manager – Emergency ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Cupertino coordinates with Santa Clara County OEM, who provides technical advice and support for implementation of the LHMP through monthly general meetings, as well as periodic LHMP specific trainings and guidance.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 49 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 850 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentREGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HS ‐ 1.1.1Monitoring and Budgeting Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP, including local strategies provided in Cupertino Annex (Section 11). Working with Santa Clara County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the CIP and provide adequate budget for on–going programs and department operations. City Manager – Emergency ServicesNone Required Con.Santa Clara County OEM contracts with a specialist to support both County and jurisdictional prioritization and implementation of strategies, and tracking of the program. CIP and budget are responsibility of each jurisdiction. REGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HS ‐ 1.1.2Mitigation Incorporation Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate. City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Incorporation of identified mitigation actions for City are monitored annually and reported to Santa Clara County OEM for relay to CalOES for review before being sent to FEMA. REGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HS‐1.1.3Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendments and Updates Support Santa Clara County in its role as the lead agency that prepares and updates the LHMP. City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Santa Clara County OEMʹs strategic vision embraces the ʺWhole Communityʺ philosophy; providing each jurisdiction with on‐going opportunity to engage in the LHMP process. Cupertino takes full advantage of these processes and is typically ʹat the tableʹ providing city‐level support, review, and feedback. REGIONAL COORDINATIONPolicy HS ‐ 1.2Sea Level Rise Protection Ensure all areas in Cupertino are adequately protected for the anticipated effects of sea level rise.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon.Not an Action Item. Ongoing coordination occuring. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is in the process of being updated by MTC/ABAG. This document is considering support for sea walls and levees to protect the low levels in the Valley which would help protect infrastructure that provides services to Cupertino such as water treatment plant and land fills.REGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HS‐1.2.1Monitor Rising Sea Level Regularly coordinate with regional, state, and federal agencies on rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to determine if additional adaptation strategies should be implemented to address flooding hazards. This includes monitoring FEMA flood map updates to identify areas in the City susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes to state and regional sea and Bay level rise estimates, and coordinating with adjacent municipalities on flood control improvements as appropriate.Public Works – Development ServicesNoneCon.Not an Action Item. Ongoing coordination occuring.REGIONAL COORDINATIONStrategy HS ‐ 1.2.2Flood Insurance Rate Maps Provide to the public, as available, up–to–date Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that identify rising sea levels and changing flood conditions.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an Action Item. Ongoing coordination occuring.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 50 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 851 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.1Promote Emergency Preparedness Distribute multi–hazard emergency preparedness information for all threats identified in the emergency plan. Information will be provided through Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety articles in the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency Preparedness website and coordination of video and printed information at the library.City Manger – Emergency Services General FundCon.CPR, First Aid, and CERT classes provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). CERT training is communal for the seven cities served by SCCFD. The Cupertino Scene continues to feature articles on emergency preparedness, public safety, and community awareness. The Scene’s calendar section highlights upcoming emergency preparedness classes and events. Printed material is maintained in the lobby of City Hall and Quinlan Center.EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.2Emergency Operations and Training Ensure ongoing training of identified City staff on their functions/ responsibilities in the EOC and in disaster preparedness, first aid and CPR.City Manger – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. Staff are trained every two years in CPR, with first aid training for Public Works. Staff is working on providing first aid training to all staff. EOC staff receive EOC training from the County and the City has started customized trainings in‐house as well.EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.2.1Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Review options to provide functional and seismic upgrades to the EOC facility at City Hall or explore alternative locations for the EOC.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund or grant funds if availableLRCity Hall building is seismically deficient and does not meet “essential services” standards that are desired for an EOC. Schedule to improve the building to this standard is unknown. EOC functionality build‐out is continuing, including upgrading monitors, IT systems support improvements, replacement of chairs with safer alternatves, and evaluating replacement tables. Recent remodeling at the Service Center will make it more functional as the alternate site for the EOC. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.2.2Employee Training Conduct regular exercises and participate in regional exercises to ensure that employees are adequately trained.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. The EOC partially exercises in accompaniment with the annual County EOC exercise (itself often part of a Bay Area regional exercise). With the turnover of senior staff and EOC staff, initial training is occuring to lead up to a City EOC exercise. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.3 Volunteer Groups Continue to encourage the ongoing use of volunteer groups to augment emergency services, and clearly define responsibilities during a local emergency.City Manager – Emergency Services None Required Con.Not an action item. Continue to support the Cupertino Citizen Corps (CCC) volunteer program and provide trainings and exercises. CCC helps build the Cityʹs response capabilities and designed to integrate with other City resources as appropriate. For example, CCC integrated with City employees during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) informational canvassing efforts in Oct. ʹ19. Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 51 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 852 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.3.1Cupertino Citizen Corps Continue to support the Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Services (CARES), Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and Medical Reserve Corp (MRC) programs to ensure the development of neighborhood based emergency preparedness throughout the City. Encourage ongoing cooperation with CERTs in other cities.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. The City supports training and resource requests from Cupertino Citizen Corps expanding coordination and communications capability during a disaster. CERT participates in countywide projects and exercises and regularly attends countywide CERT Leadership Team (CCLT) meetings. CARES regularly atends SCC RACES trainings, leadership meetings, and regular commnication exercises. MRC participates in regular trainings and City exercises. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.3.2Community Groups Continue pre–disaster agreements with appropriate community groups to provide specified post–disaster assistance, through the Emergency Service Coordinator and with the advice of the City Attorney.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. The City continues to partner with community groups as appropriate such as the Red Cross and CADRE. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.3.3American Red Cross Continue to implement the American Red Cross agreements under the direction of the Director of Emergency Services during a disaster.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. The City continues to implement agreements with the American Red Cross.EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.3.4Shelter Provisions Continue the agreement with designated shelter sites to provide space for emergency supply containers.City Manager – Emergency Services General Fund Con.Not an action item. Existing shelter site agreements remain in place. The storage container and supplies are in place at Quinlan Community Center. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.3.5Amateur Radio Operators Continue to support training and cooperation between the City and Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Service (CARES) to prepare for emergency communications needs.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. Training opportunities focused around City events such as annual 5K runs, 4th of July event, and various festivals. Response during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events in Oct. ʹ19 demonstrated coordination between City employees and CCC (CARES, CERT, etc.). EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.4Emergency Public Information Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to be used during emergency situations.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.Not an action item. City Communications has a system in place. Developing an emergency communications annex to the Emergency Operations Base Plan (EOP) is a priority for OES in FY 20/21. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.4.1Communication Methods Use the local TV channel, Cupertino Alert System (CAS), the Internet and other communication methods to transmit information to the citizenry.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.This is not an action item. Preparedness information is published on tranditional media and social media platforms. During periods of emergency and alert, these notifications increase. An emergency communications annex is in development to include the various communication methods. Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 52 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 853 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.4.2Public Information Office Activate the Public Information in coordination with the Sheriff and the Fire Department to provide accurate information to the public as needed.City Manager – Emergency Services General Fund Con.Not an action item. This is coordinated by SCC Office of Emergency Management (OEM) during periods of concern. OEM hosts conference calls, which are used in part to coordinate public information between the participants, including the Sheriffʹs Office, the Fire Department, and Cupertiono OES. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.5Disaster Medical Response Continue to coordinate with the appropriate County agencies and local emergency clinics to ensure preparedness and provide disaster medical response. Coordinate with the CERT member throughout the City to ensure that they are prepared to provide emergency support and first aid at the neighborhood level.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.This is not an action item. The City continues to coordinate with County Emergency Medical Services and the County Public Health Department for awareness of their systems and capabilities to provide disaster medical response. Existing plans on getting response requests to County dispatch in the case of a total communcations (telephone, mobile phone, etc.) outage. Citizen Corps members are provided refresher first aid training. This training is practiced during City public service events (the 5K runs, Fourth of July, various festivals, etc.).EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSStrategy HS ‐ 2.5.1Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Develop a MOU with local emergency clinics. The County’s role and involvement in emergencies should be considered in development of the MOU.City Manager – Emergency Services General FundCon.This is not an action item. Although there are ʹfree‐standingʹ physician offices in the City, there are no known public emergency medical clinics in the City. Long‐term care facilities, and any companion medical components, are coordinated through, and supported by, the County Emergency Medical Services Agency and the County Public Health Department. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSPolicy HS ‐ 2.6Military Facilities and Readiness Consider the impact of development on neighboring military facilities and maintain military airspace to ensure military readiness.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.There are no abutting military facilities or airspace over Cupertino.FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.1 Regional Coordination Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula Open Space District to implement measures to reduce fire hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction policies of the County Public Safety Element, continuing efforts in fuel management, and considering the use of “green” fire break uses for open space lands.Santa Clara County Fire General Fund Con.The City participates in the Countyʹs Weed Abatement program to ensure fire safety. FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.2 Early Project Review Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modification as needed.Community Development – Building and Planning; Santa Clara County FireGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 53 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 854 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentFIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.3 Emergency Access Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new hillside development.Santa Clara County Fire; Community Development – BuildingNone Required Con.Not an action item.Reviewed in conjunction with project review.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.3.1Roadway Design Create an all–weather emergency road system to serve rural areas.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement Program; Santa Clara County FireGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.3.2Dead–End Street AccessAllow public use of private roadways during an emergency for hillside subdivisions that have dead–end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary means of access.Santa Clara County Fire; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.3.3Hillside Access Routes Require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel.Santa Clara County Fire; Public Works – Development Services None Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.3.4Hillside Road Upgrades Require new hillside development to upgrade existing access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards.Santa Clara County Fire; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.4Private Residential Electronic Security Gates Discourage the use of private residential electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.4.1Location Require a fence exception for electronic security gates in certain areas.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.FIRE SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 3.4.2Access to Gates Where electronic security gates are allowed, require the installation of an approved key switch to be accessed by the Fire District.Community Development – Building; Santa Clara County FireNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.5Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines Coordinate with the Fire Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.Community Development – BuildingGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal and Fire Code.FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.6Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness Promote fire prevention and emergency preparedness through city–initiated public education programs, the government television channel, the government television channel, the Internet, and the Cupertino Scene.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. There is coordinated public education of life safety conducted by the City, including Personal Emergency Preparedness classes. Some information is also provided on the City radio station (1670 AM). The Scene periodically features articles regarding emergency preparedness and fire safety. FIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.7Multi–Story Buildings Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design of multi–story buildings and require on–site fire suppression materials and equipment.Santa Clara County Fire; Community Development – BuildingGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented throught the Municipal and Fire Codes.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 54 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 855 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentFIRE SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 3.8Extension of Water Service Encourage the water companies to extend water service into the hillside and canyon areas and encourage cooperation between water utility companies and the Fire Department in order to keep water systems in pace with growth and firefighting service needs.Santa Clara County Fire; Community Development – BuildingGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.PUBLIC SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 4.1Neighborhood Awareness Programs Continue to support the Neighborhood Watch Program and other similar programs intended to help neighborhoods prevent crime through social interaction.City Manager – Public AffairsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.PUBLIC SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 4.2Crime Prevention Through Building and Site Design Consider appropriate design techniques to reduce crime and vandalism when designing public spaces and reviewing development proposals.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Park Improvement; Community Development – PlanningCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.PUBLIC SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 4.2.1Perimeter Roads for Parks Encircle neighborhood parks with a public road to provide visual accessibility whenever possible.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Park ImprovementCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.PUBLIC SAFETYStrategy HS ‐ 4.2.2Development Review Continue to request County Sheriff review and comment on development applications for security and public safety measures.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.PUBLIC SAFETYPolicy HS ‐ 4.3 Fiscal Impacts Recognize fiscal impacts to the County Sheriff and City of Cupertino when approving various land use mixes.Community Development – Planning and City Manager – Economic DevelopmentNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSPolicy HS ‐ 5.1Seismic and Geologic Review ProcessEvaluate new development proposals within mapped potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/geologic review process. Use Table HS ‐ 3 of this Element to determine the level of review required.Community Development – Building and Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.1.1Geotechnical and Structural Analysis Require any site with a slope exceeding 10% to reference the Landslide Hazard Potential Zone maps of the State of California for all required geotechnical and structural analysis.Community Development – Building and Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.1.2Residential Upgrades Require that any residential facility, that is being increased more than 50% assessed value or physical size, conform to all provisions of the current building code throughout the entire structure. Owners of residential buildings with known structural defects, such as un–reinforced garage openings, “soft first story” construction, unbolted foundations, or inadequate sheer walls are encouraged to take steps to remedy the problem and bring their buildings up to the current building code.Community Development – Building and PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 55 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 856 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentGEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.1.3Geologic Review Continue to implement and update geologic review procedures for Geologic Reports required by the Municipal Code through the development review process.Community Development – Building and Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSPolicy HS ‐ 5.2Public Education on Seismic Safety Reinforce the existing public education programs to help residents minimize hazards resulting from earthquakes.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. The City continues to hold Personal Emergency Preparedness classes which includes education on earthquake safety. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.2.1Covenant on Seismic Risk Require developers to record a covenant to tell future residents in high–risk areas about the risk and inform them that more information is in City Hall records. This is in addition to the State requirement that information on the geological report is recorded on the face of subdivision maps.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.2.2Emergency Preparedness Publish and promote emergency preparedness activities and drills. Use the City social media, and the website to provide safety tips that may include identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and when to turn off utilities, helping family members protect themselves during and after an earthquake, recommending neighborhood preparation activities, and advising residents to maintain an emergency supply kit containing first–aid supplies, food, drinking water and battery operated radios and flashlights.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Presented in Personal Emergency Preparedness classes offered by the Cityʹs Office of Emergency Services. Distribution of printed materials in the lobby of City Hall and on the City website.GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.2.3Neighborhood Response Groups Encourage participation in CERT training. Train neighborhood groups to care for themselves during disasters. Actively assist in neighborhood drills and safety exercises to increase participation and build community support.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides CERT training for community members. When requested by neighborhood groups, Cupertinoʹs Office of Emergency Services will present preparedness information and support, including exercises. This would include the Block Leader Program. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.2.4Dependent Populations As part of community–wide efforts, actively cooperate with State agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities and those with access and functional needs, to ensure that such facilities conform to all health and safety requirements, including emergency planning, training, exercises and employee education.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. As situations arise, the City cooperates with State agencies overseeing facilities for those with disabilities and access and functional needs. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDSStrategy HS ‐ 5.2.5Foreign Language Emergency Information Obtain translated emergency preparedness materials and make them available to appropriate foreign language populations.City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Foreign language emergency preparedness information is available. During an emergency, the City has the ability to translate materials and can also receive translation support from the County. HAZARDOUS MATERIALSPolicy HS ‐ 6.1Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal Require the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire or the release of harmful fumes. Maintain information channels to the residential and business communities about the illegality and danger of dumping hazardous material and waste in the storm drain system or in creeks.Public Works – Environmental Programs; Santa Clara County FireGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review. Ongoing coordination/ education.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 56 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 857 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentHAZARDOUS MATERIALSPolicy HS ‐ 6.2Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials Assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials when new residential development or sensitive populations are proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential development or sensitive populations if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk.Community Development – PlanningNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.HAZARDOUS MATERIALSPolicy HS ‐ 6.3Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Ensure that projects meet Federal and State standards for EMF emissions through development review.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.HAZARDOUS MATERIALSPolicy HS ‐ 6.4 Educational Programs Continue to encourage residents and businesses to use non– and less– hazardous products, especially less toxic pest control products, to slow the generation of new hazardous waste requiring disposal through the county–wide program.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Service CenterGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing implementation.HAZARDOUS MATERIALSPolicy HS ‐ 6.5Hazardous Waste Disposals Continue to support and facilitate, for residences and businesses, a convenient opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing implementation.HAZARDOUS MATERIALSStrategy HS ‐ 6.5.1Partner on Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Continue to explore efficient, economical and convenient ways to offer Household Hazardous Waste collection for residents in partnership with the Solid Waste contractor or the County.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing implementation.HAZARDOUS MATERIALSStrategy HS ‐ 6.5.2Educational Materials Publish educational materials about the program in the Cupertino Scene, City website, and brochures that are distributed throughout the community.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination/ education.FLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.1 Evacuation Map Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood hazard areas and distribute it to the general public.Public Works – Development Services and Service CenterGeneral Fund Con.Evacuation Map and Street signage has been prepared and installed. Ongoing evaluation is occuring.FLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.2Emergency Response to Dam Failure Ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a potential dam failure.City Manager – Emergency Services; Public WorksGeneral Fund Con.Implemented through Strategies HS‐7.2.1 and HS‐7.2.2. The Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan was adopted in 2012 and a comprehensive network of flood evacuation signs were placed in late 2014 on streets that would be impacted from a dam failure.FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐7.2.1Emergency and Evacuation Plan Maintain and update a Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan, including alert, warning and notification systems and appropriate signage.City Manager – Emergency Services General Fund‐Action completed. Adopted in 2012. Online at: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=7424. Alert, warning, notification are major components of these plans. FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐7.2.2Inter–agency Cooperation Continue to coordinate dam–related evacuation plans and alert/notification systems with the City of Sunnyvale, the SCVWD and Santa Clara County to ensure that traffic management between the agencies facilities life safety. Also work with other neighboring cities to enhance communication and coordination during a dam–related emergency. City Manager – Emergency ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is scheduled to revise its Stevens Creek Dam Emergency Plan in 2020. This will facilitate updating the Cityʹs Dam Failure Plan, as well as the coordination with SCVWD on dam damage survey efforts.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 57 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 858 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentFLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.3Existing Non–Residential Uses in the Flood Plain Allow commercial and recreational uses that are now exclusively within the flood plan to remain in their present use or to be used for agriculture, provided it does not conflict with Federal, State and regional requirements.Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con. Not an action item.FLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.4Construction in Flood Plains Continue to implement land use, zoning and building code regulations limiting new construction in the already urbanized flood hazard areas recognized by the Federal Flood Insurance Administrator.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐ 7.4.1Dwellings in Flood Plains Discourage new residential development in regulated flood plains. Regulate all types of redevelopment in natural flood plains. This includes discouraging fill materials and obstructions that may increase flood potential or modify the natural riparian corridors.Public Works – Development ServicesNone RequiredCon.Not an action item. Information provided to property owners/ applicants as needed.FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐ 7.4.2Description of Flood Zone Regulation Continue to maintain and update a map of potential flood hazard areas and a description of flood zone regulations on the City’s website.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Ongoing coordination/ education.FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐ 7.4.3National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS).Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Ongoing coordination.FLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.5 Hillside Grading Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operations to April through October except as otherwise allowed by the City. Require performance bonds during the remaining time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. Require planting of graded slopes as soon as practical after grading is complete.Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.FLOODINGPolicy HS ‐ 7.6Stability of Existing Water Storage Facilities Assure the structural integrity of water storage facilities.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item.FLOODINGStrategy HS ‐ 7.6.1Coordination with other Agencies Work closely with the San Jose Water Company and owners of other water storage facilities to develop and implement a program to monitor the stability of all existing water storage facilities and related improvements, such as: distribution lines, connections and other system components.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.1Land Use Decision Evaluation Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map (see Figure D‐1 in Appendix D) and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con. Not an action item.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.2Building and Site Design Minimize noise impacts through appropriate building and site design.Community Development – Planning and BuildingNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.NOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.2.1Commercial Delivery Areas Locate delivery areas for new commercial and industrial developments away from existing or planned homes.Community Development – Planning and BuildingNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.NOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.2.2Noise Control TechniquesRequire analysis and implementation of techniques to control the effects of noise from industrial equipment and processes for projects new low‐intensity residential uses.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 58 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 859 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentNOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.2.3Sound Wall Requirements Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other measures of noise control have been explored and that the sound wall blends with the neighborhood. Sound walls should be designed and landscaped to fit into the environment.Community Development – PlanningNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.3Construction and Maintenance Activities Regulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, during weekdays, weekends and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use the best available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers.Community Development – Planning and BuildingGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.4Freeway Design and Neighborhood Noise Ensure that roads and development along Highway 85 and Interstate 280 are designed and improved in a way that minimizes neighborhood noise.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesCapital Improvement Fund; General FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.5Neighborhoods Review residents’ needs for convenience and safety and prioritize them over the convenient movement of commute or through traffic where practical.Public Works – TransportationCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.6Traffic Calming Solutions to Traffic Noise Evaluate solutions to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods through enhanced paving and modified street design.Public Works – TransportationCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program. NOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.6.1Local Improvement Modify street design to minimize noise impact to neighbors.Public Works – TransportationCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.NOISEPolicy HS ‐ 8.7Reduction of Noise from Trucking Operations Work to carry out noise mitigation measures to diminish noise along Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards from the quarry and cement plant trucking operations. These measures include regulation of truck speed, the volume of truck activity, and trucking activity hours to avoid late evening and early morning. Alternatives to truck transport, specifically rail, are strongly encouraged when feasible.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination/ implementation.NOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.7.1Restrictions in the County’s Use Permit Coordinate with the County to restrict the noise of trucks, their speed and noise levels along Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevards, to the extent allowed in the Use Permit. Ensure that restrictions are monitored and enforced by the County.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination/ implementation.NOISEStrategy HS ‐ 8.7.2Road Improvements to Reduce Truck Impacts Consider road improvements such as medians, landscaping, noise attenuating asphalt, and other methods to reduce quarry truck impacts.Public Works – TransportationGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination/ implementation.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy INF ‐ 1.1Infrastructure Planning Upgrade and enhance the City’s infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requirements for development.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.1.1Capital Improvement Program Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies identified in Community Vision 2040.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Planning Commission reviewed the FY19/20 Capital Imp. Program and found that there was one exception ‐ parkland acquisition. However, the Council found the Capital Imp. Program to be in conformance with the General Plan.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 59 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 860 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentCITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.1.2Design Capacity Ensure that public infrastructure is designed to meet planned needs and to avoid the need for future upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth needs and over–sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or impacts to other goals.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program, Development Services and TransportationGeneral Fund, GrantsCon.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination/ implementation.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.1.3Coordination Require coordination of construction activity between various providers, particularly in City facilities and rights–of–way, to ensure that the community is not unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers maintain adequate space for all utilities when planning and constructing their infrastructure.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund, GrantsCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy INF ‐ 1.2 Maintenance Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the commuity’s needs.Public Works – Service CenterGeneral Fund, GrantsCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Improvement Program, Engineering and maintenance activities.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy INF ‐ 1.3Coordination Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that their planning and operations meet the City’s service standards and future growth.Public Works – Development ServicesNone Required Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordinationCITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREPolicy INF ‐ 1.4 Funding Explore various strategies and opportunities to fund existing and future infrastructure needs.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Imp. Program.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.4.1Existing Infrastructure Require developers to expand or upgrade existing infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.Public Works – Transportation and Development ServicesNone Required Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.4.2Future Infrastructure Needs For new infrastructure, require new development to pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct, improvements to accommodate growth without impacting service levels.Public Works – Development Services, Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramNone Required Con.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTUREStrategy INF ‐ 1.4.3Economic Development Prioritize funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic development and job creation in order to increase opportunities for municipal revenue.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Capital Imp. Program.RIGHTS–OF–WAYPolicy INF ‐ 2.1 Maintenance Maintain the City’s rights–of–way and traffic operations systems.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; GrantsCon. Not an action item.RIGHTS–OF–WAYPolicy INF ‐ 2.2 Multi–modal Systems Ensure that City rights–of–way are planned for a variety of transportation alternatives including pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, as well as new technologies such as driverless cars, etc.Public Works – Transportation, Service Center and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; GrantsCon.Not an action item. Implemented through Capital Imp. Program and Bike/Ped Master plans.RIGHTS–OF–WAYPolicy INF ‐ 2.3Green Streets Explore the development of a “green streets” program to minimize stormwater runoff in City rights–of–way.Public Works – Transportation, Environmental Programs and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; GrantsLRAttempts have been made to identify a ʺgreen streetsʺ project through the Capital Imp. Program. Ongoing.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 60 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 861 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentRIGHTS–OF–WAYPolicy INF ‐ 2.4Undergrounding Utilities Explore undergrounding of utilities through providers, public projects, private development and agency funding programs and grants.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund; GrantsLRNot an action item. Implemeneted through the Capital Imp. Program.RIGHTS–OF–WAYStrategy INF ‐ 2.4.1Public and Provider Generated Projects Require undergrounding of all new infrastructure projects constructed by public agencies and providers. Work with providers to underground existing overhead lines.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund; Grants ConNot an action item. Ongoing coordination.RIGHTS–OF–WAYStrategy INF ‐ 2.4.2Development Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments and highly encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment of major projects.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund; GrantsCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.RIGHTS–OF–WAYPolicy INF ‐ 2.5Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan for citywide access to recycled water and encourage its use.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundLRAttempts have been made to require development projects to route recycled water to Stevens Creek Blvd. If not successful, could be reviewed in conjunction with the Capital Imp. Program.RIGHTS–OF–WAYStrategy INF ‐ 2.5.1Availability Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public infrastructure projects and development review.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement Program, Capital Improvement FundLRAttempts have been made to require development projects to route recycled water to Stevens Creek Blvd. If not successful, could be reviewed in conjunction with the Capital Imp. Program.RIGHTS–OF–WAYStrategy INF ‐ 2.5.2Use Encourage private and public projects to incorporate the use of recycled water for landscaping and other uses.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement Fund (partial)LRAttempts have been made to required development projects to route recycled water to Stevens Creek Blvd and also to require dual plumbing to allow use of recycled water. RIGHTS–OF–WAYStrategy INF ‐ 2.5.3City Facilities Design and retrofit City buildings, facilities and landscaping to use recycled water, to the extent feasible.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Service CenterCapital Improvement FundLRNot an action item. When recycled water services are available, coordination will occur.WATERPolicy INF ‐ 3.1Coordination with Providers Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City continues to have adequate supply for current needs and future growth.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WATERStrategy INF ‐ 3.1.1Maintenance Coordinate with providers to ensure that water and recycled water delivery systems are maintained in good condition.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WATERPolicy INF ‐ 3.2 Regional Coordination Coordinate with State and regional agencies to ensure that policies and programs related to water provision and conservation meet City goals. Note: additional water conservation policies are discussed in detail in the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element.Public Works – Environmental Programs; City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.STORMWATERPolicy INF ‐ 4.1Planning and Management Create plans and operational policies to develop and maintain an effective and efficient stormwater system.Public Works – Sevice Center and Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Council adopted an updated Storm Drain Master Plan in Jan. 2019. Projects consistent with the Master Plan will be identified for the Councilʹs consideration for inclusion in the CIP in upcoming years.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 61 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 862 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSTORMWATERStrategy INF ‐ 4.1.1Management Reduce the demand on storm drain capacity through implementation of programs that meet and even exceed on–site drainage requirements.Public Works – Development Services and Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.STORMWATERStrategy INF ‐ 4.1.2Infrastructure Develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s storm drain infrastructure that meets the current and future needs of the community.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundIM/LRCouncil adopted an updated Storm Drain Master Plan in Jan. 2019. Projects consistent with the Master Plan will be identified for the Councilʹs consideration for inclusion in the CIP in upcoming years.STORMWATERStrategy INF ‐ 4.1.3Maintenance Ensure that City’s storm drain infrastructure is appropriately maintained to reduce flood hazards through implementation of best practices.Public Works – Service CenterCapital Improvement FundNot an action item. Ongoing maintenance .STORMWATERPolicy INF ‐ 4.2 Funding Develop permanent sources of funding stormwater infrastructure construction and maintenance.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral FundAction Completed. Storm Drain Funding acquired through ballot measure.STORMWATERStrategy INF ‐ 4.2.1Ongoing Operations Review other funding strategies to pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the storm drain system per State and regional requirements. Note: additional policies that meet State and regional runoff reduction are described in the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsCapital Improvement FundNot an action item. Ongoing coordination.WASTEWATERPolicy INF ‐ 5.1 Infrastructure Ensure that the infrastructure plans for Cupertino’s waste water system providers continue to meet the City’s current and future needs.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundNot an action item. Ongoing coordination.WASTEWATERStrategy INF ‐ 5.1.1Coordination Coordination with the Cupertino Sanitary District on their Master Plan and the Sunnyvale Treatment Plant to develop a comprehensive capital improvement program to ensure adequate capacity for future development anticipated with General Plan buildout.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.WASTEWATERStrategy INF ‐5.1.2Development Require developers to pay their fair share of costs for, or in some cases construct, infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are met.Public Works – Development Services‐Con.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.WASTEWATERPolicy INF ‐ 5.2Demand Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater system through implementation of water conservation measures.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSPolicy INF ‐ 6.1Telecommunications Master Plan Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master Plan with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging technologies.Information Services; Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – Planning General FundWireless and Fiber Optic Master Plan is being prepared.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSPolicy INF ‐ 6.2 Coordination Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery of services to businesses and homes.Information Services; Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 62 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 863 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentTELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐ 6.2.1Facility Upgrades When possible, require service providers to upgrade existing facilities as part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer technologies that allow the facility components to be reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.Public Works – Development Services; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐6.2.2Improved Access Work with providers to expand service to areas that are not served by telecommunications technologies.Information Services – Communications; Public Works – Development Services; General Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐ 6.2.3City Facilities Encourage leasing of City sites to expand access to telecommunications services. Develop standards for the incorporation of telecommunications systems and public use.Information Services; Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐ 6.2.4Agency and Private Facilities Encourage the installation of communications infrastructure in facilities owned by other public agencies and private development.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination. New cell tower proposed at Sports Center was requested by Council to be relocated.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐ 6.2.5Communications Infrastructure Support the extension and access to telecommunications infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund LRWireless and Fiber Optic Master Plan is being prepared.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSPolicy INF ‐ 6.3 Emerging Technologies Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner with providers to provide the community with accesss to these services.Information ServicesGeneral Fund LRThe Information Services team has implemented several technologies in the City since adoption of the 2015 General Plan. These include the 311 service software, and Accela for permit review.TELE‐COMMUNICATIONSStrategy INF ‐6.3.1Strategic Technology Plan Create and update a Strategic Technology Plan for the City to improve service efficiency.Information Services – Information TechnologyGeneral FundIMImplementation of current three year Strategic Technology Plan began in Oct 2017. All projects in this plan have been completed or will be complete by September 2020. New strategic plan for 2020 – 2023 will be developed by July 2020. Strategic Technology plans are available online at: www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=16966.SOLID WASTEPolicy INF ‐ 7.1Providers Coordinate with solid waste system providers to utilize the latest technology and best practices to encourage waste reduction and meet, and even, exceed State targets.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Ongoing coordinationSOLID WASTEPolicy INF ‐ 7.2 Facilities Ensure that public and private developments build new and on–site facilities and/or retrofit existing on–site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.SOLID WASTEPolicy INF ‐ 7.3 Operations Encourage public agencies and private property owners to design their operations to exceed regulatory waste diversion requirements.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 63 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 864 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSOLID WASTEStrategy INF ‐ 7.3.1City Facilities and Events Design new City facilities and retrofit existing facilities and event venues with recycling and trash collection bins to facilitate easy disposal of recyclable and compostable waste by staff and the public.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.SOLID WASTEPolicy INF ‐ 7.4Product Stewardship Per the City’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy, support statewide and regional EPR initiatives and legislation to reduce waste and toxins in products, processes and packaging.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEPolicy INF ‐ 8.1 Reducing Waste Meet or exceed Federal, State and regional requirements for solid waste diversion through implementation of programs.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐8.1.1Outreach Conduct and enhance programs that promote waste reduction through partnerships with schools, institutions, businesses and homes.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.2Hazardous Waste Work with providers and businesses to provide convenient hazardous and e–waste facilities for the community.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.3Preferential Purchasing Maintain and update a City preferential purchasing policy to products that reduce packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions, toxic contaminants and are reusable.Public Works – Environmental Programs and City Manager – SustainabilityGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.4Reuse Encourage reuse of materials and reusable products. Develop a program for reuse of materials and reusable products in City facilities and outreach programs for community–wide participation by promoting community–wide garage sales and online venues.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.5Collaboration Collaborate with agencies and large businesses or projects to enhance opportunities for community–wide recycling, reuse and reduction programs.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.6Construction Waste Encourage recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition and construction of City, agency and private projects.Public Works – Environmental ProgramsGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLEStrategy INF ‐ 8.1.7Recycled Materials Encourage the use of recycled materials and sustainably harvested materials in City, agency and private projects.Public Works – Environmental Programs and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Implemented in conjunction with project review.PARKS AND OPEN SPACEPolicy RPC ‐ 1.1Parks and Recreation Master Plan Prepare a citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan that outlines policies and strategies to plan for the communities open space and recreational needs.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral Fund IM UnderwayPARKS AND OPEN SPACEStrategy RPC ‐ 1.1.1Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Prepare a master plan for the park and open space corridor along Stevens Creek including McClellan Ranch, McClellan Ranch West, Blackberry Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf course, Stocklmeir and Blesch properties and the Nathan Hall Tank House area.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral Fund LR Anticipated to recommence in 2020Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 64 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 865 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentPARKS AND OPEN SPACEStrategy RPC ‐ 1.1.2Civic Center Master Plan Prepare a master plan that addresses the needs of the elements in the Civic Center area including City Hall, Community Hall, Library Field, Library programming, function and meeting space and community gathering space and parking needs.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Park ImprovementGeneral FundIM/LRCivic Center Master Plan provides guidance on capital projects in this node. Library expansion currently anticipated.PARKS AND OPEN SPACEPolicy RPC ‐ 1.2 Parkland Standards Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and implementation program that provides a minimum of three acres per 1,000 residents.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral Fund; Developer FeesCon.Not an action item.PARKS AND OPEN SPACEStrategy INF ‐ 1.2.1Park Size Require target for parks based on function and activity supported as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. While the preferred size for most neighborhood parks is about 3.5 acres for flexibility of use, smaller size parks may be considered based on opportunities and circumstances.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.PARKS AND OPEN SPACEStrategy INF ‐ 1.2.2Amend Parkland Standard Explore increasing the parkland standard to five acres per 1,000 residents as part of the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan.Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral FundNo action has been taken with regard to this strategy. This is an aspirational goal. The Parks Master Plan does not propose any change to the current 3 acre/1000 residents standard.PARKS AND OPEN SPACEPolicy RPC ‐ 1.3Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies identified in the Community Vision 2040, establishing a criteria for ranking CIP proposals for the highest and best selection of community projects.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESPolicy 2.1 Parkland Acquisition The City’s parkland acquisition strategy should be based upon three broad objectives:*Distributing parks equitably throughout the City;*Connecting and providing access by providing paths, improved pedestrian and bike connectivity and signage; and*Obtaining creek lands and restoring creek and other natural open space areas, including strips of land adjacent to creeks that may be utilized in creating buffer areas, trails and trail amenities.Public Works – Park Improvement, Capital Improvement Program and Development ServicesGeneral Fund; Developer FeesCon.Not an action item. The Parks Master Plan in consideration include Park Equity Heat Maps to indicate park deficient areas.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.1.1Dedication of Parkland New developments, in areas where parkland deficiencies have been identified, should be required to dedicate parkland rather than paying in–lieu fees.Public Works – Development ServicesGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.1.2Public Use of School Sites Zone all public school sites for public use to allow for the public to use sites, when not in use by schools, through shared arrangements.Public Works – Service CenterGeneral FundCon.Most school sites have joint use agreements in place to allow use of open spaces. The City looks for additional agreements as opportunities arise.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.1.3Acquisition of Surplus Properties Explore acquisition of surplus school and agency properties for parkland. Take advantage of the Naylor Act to purchase surplus school sites.Public Works – Development Services and Park ImprovementGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 2.2Private Open Space and Recreation Facilities Encourage the continued existence and profitability of private open space and recreation facilities through incentives and development controls.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Implemented through Strategies RPC‐2.2.1 & RPC 2.2.2ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.2.1Existing Facilities Encourage the continued existence of private recreational facilities through land use zoning and incentives.Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Existing zoning allows private recreational facilities to be a conforming use.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 65 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 866 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.2.2New Facilities *Require major developments to incorporate private open space and recreational facilities, and seek their cooperation in making the spaces publicly accessible.*Where feasible, ensure park space is publicly accessible (as opposed to private space).*Encourage active areas to serve community needs. However, a combination of active and passive areas can be provided based on the setting.*Integrate park facilities into the surroundings.*If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees based on a formula that considers the extent to which the publicly–accessible facilities meet community need.Community Development – Planning; Public Works – Development ServicesCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Municipal Code.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐2.3Parkland Distribution Strive for an equitable distribution of parks and recreational facilities through the City. Park acquisition should be based on the following priority list. Accessibility to parks should be a component of the acquisition plan.High Priority: Parks in neighborhoods or areas that have few or no park and recreational areas.Medium Priority: Parks in neighborhoods that have other agency facilities such school fields and districts facilities, but no City parks.Low Priority: Neighborhoods and areas that have park and recreational areas which may be slightly less than the adopted City’s parkland standard.Private Development: Consider pocket parks in new and renovated projects to provide opportunities for publicly–accessible park areas.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund, Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 2.4Connectivity and Access Ensure that each home is within a half–mile walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilites; ensure that walking and biking routes are reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic; provide pedestrian links between parks, wherever possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage to identify public parks.Public Works – Development Services, Transportation and Capital Improvement Program; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund, Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action iem. Reviewed in conjunction with project review to the extent allowed by State law.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.4.1Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans to link employment and special areas, and neighborhood to services including parks, schools and neighborhood shopping.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.4.2Signage Adopt and maintain a master signage plan for all public parks to ensure adequate and consistent signage is provided to identify public recreational areas.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral Fund; Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 2.5Range of Park Activities Provide parks and recreational facilities for a variety of recreational activities.Public Works – Park Improvement; Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination and planning.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.5.1Special Needs Extend recreational opportunities for special needs groups (senior, disabled, visually–challenged, etc.) by making improvements to existing facilities and trails.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral Fund, Capital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 66 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 867 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.5.2Recreational Facilities Explore the possibility of providing additional access to existing facilities such as gymnasiums, swimming pools and tennis courts.Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral FundLAFCO is encouraging the City to consider the possibility of absorbing the Rancho Rinconada Recreation District. The PC suggests the Council consider rebuilding the Sports Center to provide indoor swim facilities and expand capacity. In addition, the PC suggests the council consider acquisition of the United Furniture site for construction of a recreational facility on the east side of Cupertino.ACQUISITION, DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE OF SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 2.5.3Community Gardens Encourage community gardens, which provide a more livable environment by controlling physical factors such as temperature, noise and pollution.Parks and Recreation – Outdoor Recreation; Public Works – Park ImprovementGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Capital Imp. Program has a project to renovate Community Gardens at McClellan Ranch and is looking at other opportunities elsewhere in the City.PRESERVATIONPolicy RPC ‐ 3.1Preservation of Natural Areas Design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to protect natural features and keep maintenance costs low.Public Works – Park Improvement and Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.PRESERVATIONStrategy RPC ‐ 3.1.1Native Planting Maximize the use of native plants and drought–tolerant planting.Public Work – Capital Improvement Program, Service Center and Park ImprovementGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/Capital Imp. Program and ongoing maintenance activities.PRESERVATIONStrategy RPC ‐ 3.1.2Natural Habitat Where possible, restore and provide access to creeks and riparian habitat.Public Work – Capital Improvement Program, Service Center and Park ImprovementCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.PRESERVATIONStrategy RPC ‐ 3.1.3Nature Play Areas Where appropriate, consider establishing Nature Play Areas in lieu of the more conventional play equipment.Public Works – Park ImprovementCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.INTEGRATIONPolicy RPC ‐ 4.1Recreational Intensity Design parks appropriate to address the facility and recreational programming required by each special area and neighborhood based on current and future plans for the areas.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.INTEGRATIONPolicy RPC ‐ 4.2 Park Safety Design parks to enhance public safety by providing visibility to the street and access for public safety responders.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramGeneral FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.TRAILSPolicy RPC ‐ 5.1Open Space and Trail Linkages Dedicate or acquire open space land along creeks and utility through regional cooperation, grants and private development review.Public Works – Development Services and Capital Improvement Program; Community Development – PlanningGeneral Fund/GrantsCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 67 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 868 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentTRAILSStrategy RPC ‐ 5.1.1Pedestrian and Bike Planning Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that link trails and open space to neighborhoods and special areas.Public Works – TransportationCapital Improvement Fund/GrantsCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.TRAILSStrategy RPC ‐ 5.1.2Trail Projects Implement trail projects described in this Element; evaluate any safety, security and privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail development; and work with affected neighbors in locating trails to ensure that their concerns are appropriately addressed.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement Fund/GrantsCon.Not an action item. Implemented through the Bike/Ped Master Plan. E.g. Regnart Creek Trail.TRAILSStrategy RPC ‐ 5.1.3Dedicated Trail Easements Require dedication or easements for trails, as well as their implementation, as part of the development review process, where appropriate.Public Works – Development Services and TransportationGeneral Fund; Developer feesCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.TRAILSStrategy RPC ‐ 5.1.4Joint Use Agreement Establish a Joint Use Agreement with the SCVWD that enhances the implementation of a trail program which increases the use of, and sets standards and measures for, creek trails.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and TransportationGeneral FundCon.Established on an as‐needed basis. E.g. Regnart Creek Trail.TRAILSPolicy RPC ‐ 5.2Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect employment center, shopping areas and neighborhoods to services including parks, schools, libraries and neighborhood centers.Public Works – Transportation and Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement Fund/GrantsCon.Not an action item. Implmented through the Bike/Ped Master Plans.RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 6.1Diverse Programs Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of programs to serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities.Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 6.2 Partnerships Enhance the City’s recreational programs and library service through partnerships with other agencies and non–profit organizations. Maintain and strengthen existing agreements with agencies and non–profit organizations, including the Library District, to ensure progressive excellence in the facilities, programs, and services provided to the diverse and growing Cupertino population.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; City ManagerGeneral FundCon. Not an action item.RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 6.3 Art and Culture Utilize parks as locations of art and culture and to educate the community about the City’s history, and explore the potential to use art in facilities and utilities when located in parks.Public Works – Capital Improvement Program and Development Services; Parks and Recreation – Business Services General FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with project review/ Capital Imp. Program.RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 6.4 Library Service Encourage the library to continue to improve service levels by incorporating new technology and expanding the library collections and services. City ManagerGeneral Fund Con.Not an action item. Ongoing coordination. The City is in the process of designing a Library expansion as part of its Capital Imp. Program.SUSTAINABLE AND FLEXIBLEPolicy RPC ‐ 7.1 Sustainable Design Ensure that City facilities are sustainably designed to minimize impacts on the environment.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with Capital Imp. Program.SUSTAINABLE AND FLEXIBLEPolicy RPC ‐ 7.2Flexibility Design facilities to be flexible to address changing community needs.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with Capital Imp. Program.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 68 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 869 of 873
TopicPolicy/ Strategy No.Policy/Strategy TitleGeneral Plan Policy/Strategy TextResponsible Department(s)Funding Source(s)Time FrameCommentSUSTAINABLE AND FLEXIBLEPolicy RPC ‐ 7.3 Maintenance Design facilities to reduce maintenance, and ensure that facilities are maintained and upgraded adequately.Public Works – Capital Improvement ProgramCapital Improvement FundCon.Not an action item. Reviewed in conjunction with Capital Imp. Program.COMMUNITY SERVICESPolicy RPC ‐ 8.1 School Districts Partner with school districts to allow community use of their sports fields and facilities.Public Works – Service Center; Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.COMMUNITY SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 8.1.1Shared Facilities Maintain and enhance arrangements with schools for the use of sports fields, theaters, meeting spaces and other facilities through maintenance agreements and other partnerships.Parks and Recreation – Business Services; Public Works – Service CenterGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.COMMUNITY SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 8.1.2School Expansion Encourage schools to meet their expansion needs without reducing the size of their sports fields.Public Works – Service Center; Parks and Recreation – Business ServicesGeneral FundCon. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.COMMUNITY SERVICESStrategy RPC ‐ 8.1.3School Facility Needs Collaborate with schools on their facility needs through sharing of development information and partnerships through major development projects.Community Development – Planning; City ManagerGeneral Fund Con. Not an action item. Ongoing coordination.Ongoing = Grey, Completed = Green, In‐Progress = Yellow , Pending = OrangePage 69 of 69Timeframe: Immediate (2019‐2022) = IM, Long Range (2022‐2040) = LR, Continual = ConCC 03-03-20 870 of 873
ATTACHMENT B
1
Comments on General Plan Amendments by Planning
Commissioners:
1. Strategy LU 1.3.1 – Define retail and define “substantial” in Strategy LU-1.3.1.
Consider restricting educational uses in retail areas.
2. Policy LU 1.6 – Jobs to Housing balance – Consider establishing a jobs-housing
ratio for Cupertino.
3. Strategy LU 3.3.2 – “ensure the interrelationships of new and old developments
complement each other” - add objective standards to implement this.
4. Strategy LU 3.3.3 – “building should be designed to avoid abrupt transitions with
existing development” – add further standards.
5. Strategy LU 3.3.6 – promote high quality architecture, visual interest – define this
by adding setbacks and specifying changes in materials.
6. Strategy LU 3.3.11 – allow construction of multi-story buildings provided that the
surrounding buildings will not suffer from privacy intrusion – specify and add
further standards for mitigation of privacy intrusion
7. Policy LU 4.2 – develop uniform planting plans consistent with vision for
planning area – Consider changing language to strike the word “uniform”.
Consider changing the word “formal” to “varied”. Modernize landscape plan for
more native and naturalistic. Integrate and implement pollinator pathways (as
discussed in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan). Amend the Heart of the City
Specific Plan to conform to this.
8. Policy LU – 5.1 neighborhood centers – Recommend preserving existing shopping
centers/retail even in new developments.
9. Policy LU 8.2 – Prioritize developing ways to generate city revenue and retain retail
space.
10. Strategy LU 8.3.4 – Consider including a Costco at the Vallco Shopping District.
11. Policy LU 11.2 – “allow land uses not traditionally considered to be part of college
to be built at De Anza” – Determine whether the City has land use authority over
community colleges. How would the City’s RHNA be impacted if De Anza College
were to develop housing on the site?
12. Strategy LU 13.7.4 – traffic calming – Improve Traffic signal sync, bike lanes.
Request that red light cameras be implemented to ensure compliance. Request that
this be sent to the Traffic Division.
13. Policy LU 14.1 – West Stevens Creek Area – Reiterated addition of 1:1 slope line on
Avenues (major collectors) which include Bubb Rd, N. Stelling Road, Stevens Creek
CC 03-03-20
871 of 873
2
Boulevard west of Highway 85, N. Foothill Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Miller
Avenue, and N. Tantau Avenue.
14. Policy LU-27.1 – Neighborhoods – Add standards to ensure protection of
neighborhoods from pending state legislation (e.g. SB 50)
15. Policy LU-27.9 – Amenities and Services – Define equitable. Take advantage of
opportunities as they arise
16. Policy LU-30.1 – Fairgrove Neighborhood – Verify whether design guidelines can
be applied to streamlined projects allowed by pending state legislation (e.g. SB 50).
17. Policy M-2.2.4 – Suburban Road Improvement Standards – Add language
regarding “ground water retention basin and pollinator pathways”
18. Policy M-8.4 – Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs – Amend
language to state “Require large employers to develop and maintain TDM programs
to reduce vehicle trips…..” and “Strong encourage colleges and schools to also
implement TDM programs.”
19. Strategy ES-5.3.1 – Native Plants – Include “trees” in the policy.
20. Policy ES-6.1 – Mineral Resource Areas – Replace word “consider” with a stronger
word.
21. Strategy 6.1.1 – Public Participation – Amend language to read “Strongly encourage
…..”
CC 03-03-20
872 of 873
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commissioner comments on Other Items:
I. Study Sessions/Presentations:
a. Joint PC/CC: Regarding Density Bonus law to understand the implementation of
incentives/concessions and waivers.
b. Planning Commission:
i. Regarding updating lot coverage requirements to include paved surfaces
such as driveway and on-grade impervious patios to incentivize the
construction of pervious surfaces (Strategy ES-7.2.1)
ii. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards. Compare
them to other comparable air quality districts. If BAAQMD standards are less
stringent, adopt local, more stringent requirements.
c. Sustainability Commission:
i. Recycled water and the costs and benefits of using the recycled water for
irrigation etc., as opposed to using it for groundwater recharge.
ii. Alternate Fuel Vehicles (other than electric)
d. Technology, Information and Communication Commission (TICC): 5G and
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) radiation.
e. Presentation from Housing Trust Silicon Valley on funding availability should
occur annually at the City Council instead of Housing Commission to increase
coverage and visibility of the program.
II. Policies/Ordinance Amendments:
a. Develop a procedure for placing constraints around density bonus applications
by defining bonuses, waivers, incentives and concessions.
b. Ordinance to establish and adopt prevailing standards on Air Quality
monitoring during construction. For e.g. projects over a certain size must have at least
a certain number of air quality monitors during construction etc.
c. Install air quality monitors citywide.
III. Education/Awareness Suggestions:
a. Increase awareness of impacts of air quality impacts such as asthma and stroke.
Also increase awareness of early medical intervention in the event of a stroke.
b. Consider green roof installations as demonstration facilities and educational
opportunities for the public.
CC 03-03-20
873 of 873