Cupertino City Council
May 6, 2025

displacement of 94 families, including approximately 60 school-age children and youth, highlighting the potential for significant community disruption and hardship; and WHEREAS, many if not all of the school-age children and youth to be displaced by this forced transfer from their home at McClellan Terrance attend the nearby schools of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School, all high-performing schools; and
WHEREAS, the current threat of displacing residents at McClellan Terrace raises broader concerns regarding further loss of multiple-family use housing and potential displacement of renters within the City, and demonstrates the need for further studies evaluating the adoption of regulations prohibiting such conversions to student housing; and
WHEREAS, the City has long recognized the importance of protecting families and other residents from displacement, as reflected in the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, which emphasizes that “new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents,” with displacement being a significant concern, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents, and causing the loss of both homes and critical community support networks; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted regulations in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 to address the harms associated with the conversions of multiplefamily use housing by prohibiting most conversions of apartment projects to common interest developments, unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area within a similar price range (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).); and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 further forbids such conversions when “the vacancy rate for apartment houses within the housing market area is less than five percent at the time at the time of application and has averaged five percent over the past six months…” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(e).); and WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving housing, including multiple-family rental housing within the City by regulating the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, and thereby preventing the loss of multiple-family housing within City limits and preventing displacement of City residents; and
181
CC 05-06-2025
181 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

WHEREAS, today the City has no standards or regulations applicable to the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing and the impacts of such on the welfare of the City’s citizens, residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City’s permissive regulatory environment towards the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing will: 1) result in the loss of essential housing, including rental housing, for families and others within the City, 2) displace current tenants, including families and families with school-age children and youth currently enrolled in local public schools, 3) disrupt established relationships between and among families and friends residing in the multiple-family use building or nearby residences who may be unable to find alternate housing within the neighborhood, school district or even within the City, 4) encourage the loss of multiple-family use housing in favor of student housing, 5) potentially increase the commute distance to and from work for tenants displaced by student housing potentially increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions; and 6) reduce the incentive for institutions of higher learning to build new student housing to accommodate the needs of the institutions’ students for local housing; and
WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodation; and WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in greater use of City services at a greater cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multifamily housing to student housing; and
WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of permanent housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and
WHEREAS, the rental housing market is tight, with low vacancy rates in the greater Santa Clara Valley region, including the City. The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a regional report finding vacancy rates at 4% in 2020; and 182
CC 05-06-2025
182 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and unless the City takes regulatory action to curtail such transition, the impacts described above are likely to occur; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds and determines that permitting the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing would have a current, immediate and specific adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated within the meaning of Government Code Section 65858(c) and/or (h); and WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 36934, 36937 and 65858 expressly authorize the City Council to adopt an interim urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety and to prohibit a use that is in conflict with a contemplated General Plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City, its Planning Commission or the Community Development Department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City is aware of other cities in the area and region that have developed ordinances to manage or eliminate the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, which could be good models for the City and City staff to study, but the City and City staff need time to study these ordinances and issues and develop appropriate regulations consistent with the City’s unique needs, as well as State and federal law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing, which was noticed on April 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit the transition of the multiple-family use housing to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
183
CC 05-06-2025
183 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

SECTION 1. Recitals.

The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates the same herein as if set forth in full.

SECTION 2: Findings.

The City Council finds as follows:

A. There exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, such that this interim urgency ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts identified in the foregoing recitals incorporated herein, and as follows, such that there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified specific, adverse impacts with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of this proposed interim urgency ordinance.

B. Government Code section 65580 states: “[t]he availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.” California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing per capita. This lack of housing supply in California has led to dramatically increasing housing costs across the State.

C. Rent in the City of Cupertino is significantly higher than in most communities and according to Zillow is 81% higher than the national average.

Renters make up 40% of all households in the City. (See Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element, p. H-6.) As of April 24, 2025, 103 total units were listed for rent on Zillow for the entire City. Of these, only 70 multiple-family units were available, ranging from $1,300/month to $6,810/month. With a population in the City of over 57,000 people, this means that a single multiple-family unit is only available for every 770 members of the community (less than 0.05%). In addition, land, environmental, and infrastructure constraints combine to keep land prices high. Although the City of Cupertino is doing what it can to facilitate the development of new multiple-family housing, it also must take steps to preserve existing multiple-family housing.

D. Providing for a diverse range of housing types is an important consideration in a community. A diverse range of housing types helps ensure that all 184
CC 05-06-2025
184 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

households in a community, regardless of income level, size, age, and family type, have the ability to find adequate housing that meets their needs, including K-12 schools for children and youths. This is consistent with the City’s housing element goals of conserving housing stock and preserving multifamily housing in the City. (See Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element Goal HE-3, Stable and physically sound residential neighborhoods, and Strategy HE-3.3.4, Multifamily Housing preservation Program.)
E. The need to preserve existing multiple-family housing is especially acute due to the limited availability of other housing types. For example, according to Redfin.com the median sale price of a home in Cupertino was $2,493,950 last month. This places home ownership out of reach for many members of the community, resulting in a greater need for safe and affordable multiple-family rental housing. According to the California Department of Finance E-5 Report, 2024, the City’s housing unit vacancy rate in 2024 was 5%. Comparing that to the statewide housing unit vacancy rate of 6.4% demonstrating that housing choice is quite limited in Cupertino.

F. Cupertino needs to retain its multiple-family housing. The conversion of existing multi-family housing to student housing and similar uses is inextricably intertwined with the loss of multi-family uses and the risk of displacement. The loss of multi-family housing increases rents, forces families to pay a disproportionate amount of household income on rent, and creates a strain on household finances. It also increases the likelihood that households will be forced to move out of the area if such housing stock is converted to other uses. If households are forced to move out due to increased rents or unavailability of units, this can lead to loss of community, stress and anxiety for those forced to relocate, increased commute times and traffic impacts if displaced workers cannot find affordable housing within the City, and the interruption of the education of children and youths in the home.

G. A lack of affordable multi-family housing supply and rising rents additionally increase the risk that more households will become homeless and add further barriers that prevent homeless individuals and families from finding permanent housing.

H. When people have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more resources for food and health care, are less likely to need government subsidized 185
CC 05-06-2025
185 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

services, their children do better in school, and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.

SECTION 3: Moratorium.

During the effective period of this interim urgency ordinance, the conversion of multiple-family use to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino is prohibited. Section 19.08 (M) of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines “multiple-family use” as the “use of a parcel for three or more dwelling units which may be in the same building or in separate buildings on the same parcel.”
“Student Housing” here is defined as a living space for students of accredited postsecondary educational institutions that may take the form of dwelling units, group housing, or single room occupancy Units that are owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by one or more accredited post-secondary educational institutions.

Student Housing includes:
a. Student Apartments – Off-campus or on-campus apartments with multiple bedrooms, often rented by groups of students. These units may include shared living spaces such as kitchens and bathrooms; and
b. Fraternity or Sorority Houses – Private, Greek-letter organization-owned homes that houses members of fraternities or sororities, often located near campuses and usually containing a mix of residential and social spaces; and c. Graduate Student Housing – Residential spaces designed specifically for graduate students, which may be more private or include family-friendly units, located on or near the campus; and
d. Off-Campus Housing – Residential accommodations rented by students living independently from the university. This includes houses, apartments, condos, or shared living spaces, often located near the university; and e. Single Room Occupancy Units – A form of housing that provides students with individual rooms, often with shared common areas like kitchens and bathrooms. These may be located on or near campus or in surrounding neighborhoods; and
186
CC 05-06-2025
186 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

f. University-Owned Apartments for Families – Apartments provided by universities for students with families. These units typically offer more space and family-friendly amenities and may be located off-campus or within university housing complexes; and
g. International Student Housing – Specialized housing for international students who require specific accommodations, potentially including language support, cultural programs, or more integrated living spaces.

SECTION 4: Review and Study.

During the period of this interim urgency ordinance, the City shall study and develop as necessary City laws, rules, procedures and fees related to the use of student housing and multiple-family units, to enable the City to adequately and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Cupertino. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the Director of Planning will issue a report for the legislative body on what has been accomplished during the moratorium period before it is extended.

SECTION 5. Urgency Measure.

This interim urgency ordinance is needed for the preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, as among others, it will allow the City time to study how to avoid and prevent potential conflicts between multiple-family use housing and student housing uses resulting from insufficient buffers between such uses, as well as additional impacts identified in the recitals.

SECTION 6. Urgency Measure.

This interim urgency Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this interim urgency Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed interim urgency ordinance would have no or 187
CC 05-06-2025
187 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

only a de minimis effect on the environment because it preserves existing conditions, and is therefore exempt from CEQA review. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 7. Authority and Effect.

This interim urgency ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by California Government Code section 65858 and take full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire City Council as if, and to the same extent that, such interim urgency Ordinance had been adopted pursuant to each of the individual sections set forth herein above.

SECTION 8. Effectiveness of Ordinance.

This interim urgency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a 4/5 vote, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by California Government Code section 65858. This interim urgency ordinance shall be of no further force and effect forty-five (45) days following the date of its adoption unless extended in accordance with the provisions set forth in California Government Code section 65858.

Not later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this interim urgency ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report as required by California Government Code section 65858(d).

SECTION 9. Severability.

If any provision of this interim urgency ordinance or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this interim urgency ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and to this end the provisions of this interim urgency ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION 10. Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
188
CC 05-06-2025
188 of 554
Ordinance No. __________

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 6, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular of the Cupertino City Council on this _______ day of ________, 2025 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
________________________
Date
189
CC 05-06-2025
189 of 554
Attachment A
– Page 1
190
CC 05-06-2025
190 of 554
01276.0005 2001695.1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CUPERTINO ENCOURAGING THE BUILDING OF NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED STUDENT HOUSING AND PRESERVING MULTIPLEFAMILY USE HOUSING BY PREVENTING THE CONVERSION OF

MULTIPLE-FAMILY USE HOUSING TO STUDENT HOUSING WITHIN

THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
WHEREAS, the City has been informed that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (“District”) is currently under contract to purchase McClellan Terrace Apartments (“McClellan Terrace”), a multiple-family use residential building that houses approximately ninety-four (94) families, with the intent to convert the property from multiple-family use housing to student housing, as defined below, and the closing of that transaction, with title transfer could occur at any time; and
WHEREAS, if the sale of McClellan Terrace closes and the District takes title to the apartment community, the District has stated that it will transition the apartment community to some form of student housing, as defined below, whereby current tenants will be displaced, such that tenants holding 12-month lease agreements will be forced to vacate their apartment homes upon the expiration of their leases, and tenants on month-to-month leases will be forced to vacate when their lease is up, but not earlier than 120 days from the date of the notice to vacate; and WHEREAS, at the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting, tenants residing at McClellan Terrace, as well as many other community members expressed great concern about the displacement of 94 families, including approximately 60 school-age children and youth, highlighting the potential for significant community disruption and hardship; and WHEREAS, many if not all of the school-age children and youth to be displaced by this forced transfer from their home at McClellan Terrance attend the nearby schools of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School, all high-performing schools; and
WHEREAS, the current threat of displacing residents at McClellan Terrace raises broader concerns regarding further loss of multiple-family use housing and potential displacement of renters within the City, and demonstrates the need for further studies evaluating the adoption of regulations prohibiting such conversions to student housing; and WHEREAS, the City has long recognized the importance of protecting families and other residents from displacement, as reflected in the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, which emphasizes that “new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents,” with displacement being a significant concern, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents, and causing the loss of both homes and critical community support networks; and 191
CC 05-06-2025
191 of 554
Resolution No. 25-____

01276.0005 2001695.1
WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted regulations in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 to address the harms associated with the conversions of multiple-family use housing by prohibiting most conversions of apartment projects to common interest developments, unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area within a similar price range. (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).) WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 further forbids such conversions when “the vacancy rate for apartment houses within the housing market area is less than five percent at the time at the time of application and has averaged five percent over the past six months…” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(e).)
WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving housing, including multiple-family rental housing within the City by regulating the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, and thereby preventing the loss of multiple-family housing within City limits and preventing displacement of City residents; and WHEREAS, today the City has no standards or regulations applicable to the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing and the impacts of such on the welfare of the City’s citizens, residents, visitors and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City’s permissive regulatory environment towards the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing will: 1) result in the loss of essential housing, including rental housing, for families and others within the City, 2) displace current tenants, including families and families with school-age children and youth currently enrolled in local public schools, 3) disrupt established relationships between and among families and friends residing in the multiple-family use building or nearby residences who may be unable to find alternate housing within the neighborhood, school district or even within the City, 4) encourage the loss of multiplefamily use housing in favor of student housing, 5) potentially increase the commute distance to and from work for tenants displaced by student housing potentially increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions; and 6) reduce the incentive for institutions of higher learning to build new student housing to accommodate the needs of the institutions’ students for local housing; and WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodation; and
WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in greater use of City services at a greater cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multiple-family use housing to student housing; and
192
CC 05-06-2025
192 of 554
Resolution No. 25-____

01276.0005 2001695.1
WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of permanent housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and
WHEREAS, rental housing market is tight. with vacancy rates in the greater Santa Clara Valley region, including the City are tight. The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a regional report finding vacancy rates at 4% in 2020; and WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and unless the City takes regulatory action to curtail such transition, the impacts described above are likely to occur; and
WHEREAS, the City is aware of other cities in the area and region that have developed ordinances to manage or eliminate the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, which could be good models for the City and City staff to study, but the City and City staff need time to study these ordinances and issues and develop appropriate regulations consistent with the City’s unique needs, as well as State and federal law; and WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodations; and
WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in the use of City services and greater impacts to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multiple-family use housing to student housing; and
WHEREAS, on-campus student housing reduces pressure on the City’s existing multiplefamily use housing stock and supports both student success and broader community housing stability; and
WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and
WHEREAS, by preserving the City’s existing multiple-family use housing stock and encouraging the development of student housing on campus, the City aims to prevent displacement of families and long-term residents, while supporting institutions of higher education in providing dedicated housing for their students.
193
CC 05-06-2025
193 of 554
Resolution No. 25-____

01276.0005 2001695.1

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Direct City staff to study possible solutions to ensure multiple-family use housing stock is not converted to student housing, and perhaps bring forward recommendations for amendments to Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to zoning, such as establishing dedicated student housing zones within the City, for consideration.

SECTION 3. Direct City staff to consider possible mechanisms to encourage higher education to focus on building permanent on-campus housing that supports student success and safety; utilize extended-stay hotels as temporary, affordable options when appropriate without displacing multiple-family use housing; and reaffirm the City’s commitment to maintaining a healthy balance between student housing needs and community stability.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ___ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED
_________________________________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
_________________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
_________________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Floy E. Andrews, City Attorney
_________________________________
Date
194
CC 05-06-2025
194 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13859 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
Agenda #: 10.

Subject: Approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update Adopt Resolution No. 25‐026 approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 6, 2025.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/30/2025
powered by Legistar™195
CC 05-06-2025
195 of 554

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 6, 2025
Subject
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 6, 2025.

Reasons for Recommendation
On February 6, 2024, City Council received the results of a comprehensive 2023 Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and User Fee Study. The City historically conducts fee studies in conjunction with a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) approximately every seven years. The study evaluated the full cost (both direct and indirect) of providing City services and informed a more accurate and equitable fee structure. Fee updates based on that study along with the newly developed User Fee Cost Recovery policy were adopted on May 14, 2024.

The FY 2025-26 proposed fee schedules continue to use the full cost recovery methodology developed in the 2023 study and apply the latest inflationary adjustments to the FY 2024- 25 rates: Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of 2.689%, the Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI) decrease of .790%, and/or budgeted labor costs increase of 9.690%, excluding state regulated fees.

The adjusted schedules ensure alignment with the Council-approved cost recovery policy (Attachment J) while maintaining fairness, clarity, and fiscal transparency. The proposed fee increases are estimated to generate approximately $785,483 in additional annual revenue, primarily benefiting the General Fund.

Fee Schedules and Notable Changes
Schedule A – General: This schedule includes fees not specific to a department or division that would require a dedicated schedule, such as code enforcement permits, City Clerk services, database requests, business license applications and related fees, and other fees for service.
196
CC 05-06-2025
196 of 554
A CPI adjustment is also proposed for all relevant fees using the full cost recovery rate included in the fee study. The adjustments to these fees are primarily influenced by changes in the cost of materials or external factors beyond the City's control.

No new fees are being proposed
Schedule B – Engineering: Utilized by the Development Services Division within the Public Works Department, this schedule covers fees necessary for the division to review plans and applications for private developments (onsite grading and drainage operations), issuance of encroachment permits, inspections of work performed within the Public Right of Way, along with other permits, and services. Engineering fees are typically adjusted annually by CCI and Budgeted Labor Costs.

The schedule continues the practice of not charging for Block Party services and Bi-Annual Parking Permit.

No new fees are being proposed
Schedule C – Planning: This schedule is utilized by the Planning Division, which administers all required review and evaluation processes for proposed land use projects and maintains the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Planning fees are typically adjusted annually by CPI and Budgeted Labor Costs.

No new fees are being proposed
Schedule D – Building: Utilized by the Building Division of the Community Development Department, this schedule includes fees for providing the following services: plan review and permit issuance of all proposed construction; code, ordinance, requirements, and regulation explanations; building inspection services; and other building and development-related services. Building fees are typically adjusted annually by Budgeted Labor Costs.

The proposed schedule includes Year 2 of a 3-year phase-in of full cost recovery for Additions Plan Check and Inspection Fees. As a result, these fees will increase by approximately 50–75% compared to last year’s rates, continuing the planned adjustment initiated in FY 2024-25.

No new fees are being proposed
Index-Based Adjustments
Depending on the user fee, the CPI, CCI, or change in budget cost adjustment is applied based on the user fee’s underlying cost driver. For FY 2025‐26, the CPI increase is 2.69% 197
CC 05-06-2025
197 of 554
per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CCI decrease is -0.79% per the Engineering News Record, and the labor cost increase is 9.69%, as shown in the table below.

February
2024
February
2025
Index
Increase
Percent
Increase
Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers
(CPI‐U)
345.151 354.432 9.281 2.69%
Construction Cost Index
(CCI) 15,527.50 15,404.88 -122.62 -0.79%
Budgeted Labor Costs $ 41,606,0271 $ 45,637,0002 $4,030,973 9.69% 1 Base Salary and Benefits (FY 2024‐25 Estimated Budget) 2 Base Salary and Benefits (FY 2025‐26 Estimated Budget) The net 9.7% increase in estimated Budget Labor Costs is primarily comprised of the inclusion of total pension costs, including mandatory annual payments towards the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL), as well as increases for employees progressing to higher salary steps and negotiated benefits.

The following table summarizes the current year’s application of indexes to Schedules AD, along with the rate increases for the previous four years.

Fiscal Year Schedule A –
General Fees
Schedule B –
Engineering
Fees
Schedule C –
Planning Fees
Schedule D –
Building Fees
2025-26 2.7% CPI
-.79% CCI,

9.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

2.7% CPI

9.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

9.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
2024-25
FY 2023-24 costrecovery plus

2.4% CPI
FY 2023-24 costrecovery plus

0.7% CCI,

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
FY 2023-24 cost -
recovery plus

2.4% CPI

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
FY 2023-24 cost -
recovery plus

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
2023-24 5.3% CPI

7.1% CCI,

9.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

5.3% CPI

9.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

9.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
2022-23 5.2% CPI

9.8% CCI,

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

5.2% CPI

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

1.0% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
198
CC 05-06-2025
198 of 554
2021-22 1.6% CPI

2.5% CCI,

5.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

1.6% CPI

5.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase

5.7% Estimated
Labor Cost
increase
Parks and Recreation fees (Schedule E) are not part of the proposed fee increase because they are set by current market rates per Resolutions No. 04-350.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
If Council approves the proposed fee updates with an effective date of July 6 th
, 2025, the
proposed fee schedule adjustments are anticipated to generate additional revenues totaling $785,483 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. A decision to forego implementing these increases would result in the General Fund absorbing a greater share of service costs, placing additional financial strain on the City’s primary operating fund. Over time, this subsidization could limit the City’s ability to fund other essential services and programs that benefit the broader community.

The recommended increase in fees and estimated revenue are summarized as follows:

Fee Schedule Additional Revenue Factor and Basis
Schedule A – General $971 2.7% CPI
Schedule B – Engineering $136,082 -0.79% CCI,

9.7% Labor Costs
Schedule C – Planning $106,255 2.7% CPI,

9.7% Labor Costs
Schedule D – Building $542,175 9.7% Labor Costs
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.

Council Goal
None.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
199
CC 05-06-2025
199 of 554
____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Redline) B – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Redline) C – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Redline) D – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Redline) E – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Clean) F – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Clean) G – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Clean) H – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Clean) I – Draft Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D J – User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
200
CC 05-06-2025
200 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
All Municipal Code Parking Violations (including County and State fees) Each $82.81 $85.04 $2.23 2.7% Animal Establishment Permit Each $369.05 $378.98 $9.92 2.7% Annual Lobbyist Registration Fee Per Lobbyist $296.86 $304.84 $7.98 2.7% Bingo Permit Annual $261.41 $268.44 $7.03 2.7%
Business License Database Each $30.42 $31.24 $0.82 2.7% Candidate Statement Fee (County Regulated Fee) Each
Current County
Registrar Cost
Current County
Registrar Cost
City Administrative Fee Each 15% 15%
Code Enforcement
Abatement/Graffiti Cleanup Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Hourly rate Hourly $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7%
Substandard Housing Re-Inspection Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Community Festivals - One-time Business License (correction) Each $12.88 $13.23 $0.35 2.7% Community Festivals - Business Partners Each $65.72 $67.49 $1.77 2.7% Community Festivals - Additional 10' x 10' space (includes an additional table and 2 chairs) Each $11.85 $12.17 $0.32 2.7% Community Festivals - Non-profit partners Each $11.85 $12.17 $0.32 2.7% Compilation of New Records Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Credit Card Transaction Fee Each 3.40% 3.40%
CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin Fee (State Regulated Fee) Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Damage to City Property
Grounds, Streets, Facilities, Traffic Engineering/Maintenance Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee Annual $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Sign Each $24.90 $25.57 $0.67 2.7%
Duplicate Business Licenses Each $15.21 $15.62 $0.41 2.7% Event Video Taping/Editing Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * False Alarms Each $121.68 $124.95 $3.27 2.7%
Farmers Market Each $3.29 $3.38 $0.09 2.7%
Fingerprinting Processing (State Fee $32 plus County Fee $20) Each $73.09 $75.05 $1.97 2.7% Flea Markets Each $13.94 $14.31 $0.37 2.7%
Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps
Plotted maps Per Map $37.10 $38.10 $1.00 2.7%
Printed maps Per Map $4.95 $5.08 $0.13 2.7%
Custom request maps Per Map Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Prints/plots of aerial photography (see Engineering fees) Per Map Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Handbill Permit Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7%
Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7%
Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices Each 12% per annum 12% per annum Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting/background check and business start-up inspection)
Each $553.58 $568.47 $14.89 2.7%
Renewals (Includes two inspections per year) Each $184.53 $189.49 $4.96 2.7% Massage Managing Employee (Includes fingerprint/background check) Each $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Renewals Each $184.53 $189.49 $4.96 2.7%
Massage Permit Appeal (Denial/Revocation) Each $1,230.18 $1,263.26 $33.08 2.7% Municipal Code Book Per Book Vendor Invoice Vendor Invoice New Business Monthly Reports Each $45.63 $46.86 $1.23 2.7% Noise Variances/Special Exceptions Each $252.38 $259.16 $6.79 2.7% Notary Fee (State Regulated Fee) Per Signature $15.00/signature $15.00/signature $0.00 0.0% Outside Agency Review / Services
Vendor Invoice + City
Admin Fee
Vendor Invoice + City
Admin Fee
Petitions for Reconsideration Each $376.05 $386.17 $10.11 2.7% Permit Update Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7%
201
CC 05-06-2025
201 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Photocopies - per sheet
Standard sizes Per Page $0.30 $0.30 $0.01 2.7%
For 11 x 17 sizes or color sheets Per Page $0.69 $0.70 $0.02 2.7% For Large format prints Per Page $34.36 $35.29 $0.92 2.7% Fair Political Practices Commission Per Page $0.10 $0.11 $0.00 2.7% Fair Political Practices Commission (older than five (5) years) Per Page $5.12 $5.26 $0.14 2.7% Property Liens Administrative Fee Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Returned Check Charge (State Regulated)
First returned check Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0%
Subsequent checks Each $35.00 $35.00 $0.00 0.0%
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) (All except Political Signs) Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Sign Recovery Fee for Political Signs Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Small Income Business License Each $92.02 $94.49 $2.47 2.7% Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting) Each $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7%
Taxi Driver Permit (Includes fingerprinting/background check) Each $984.14 $1,010.61 $26.46 2.7% Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7%
Tobacco Retailer (County Regulated Fee)
Application Fee Each Current County Cost Current County Cost Annual Fee Annual Current County Cost Current County Cost Williamson Act Filings Each $145.91 $149.83 $3.92 2.7%
Video/Audio Service
DVD/CD Each $25.76 $26.45 $0.69 2.7%
Flash Drive Each $27.80 $28.55 $0.75 2.7%
* Actual cost is: 1) Fully burdened employee costs as calculated through the 2023 Cost Allocation Plan and 2) cost of materials, contractors, and supplies.
202
CC 05-06-2025
202 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Each $608 $667 $58.88 9.7%
Each $420 $461 $40.73 9.7%
Each $1,068 $1,172 $103.48 9.7%
Each Double the permit cost Double the permit cost
Each $2,217 $2,432 $214.83 9.7%
Each $1,747 $1,916 $169.25 9.7%
Each $3,551 $3,895 $344.03 9.7%
Each/% of Project 5% of Project Costs and/or
$257 per inspection
5% of Project Costs and/or
$282 per inspection $25.00 9.7%
Per Permit $528 $579 $51.18 9.7%
Each No Charge No Charge
Each $1,352 $1,483 $130.97 9.7%
Each/% of Improv. Greater of $4891 or 6% of
cost of improvement
Greater of $5365 or 6% of
cost of improvement $474.00 9.7%
Each $8,383 $9,195 $812.21 9.7%
Each $13,687 $15,013 $1,326.03 9.7%
Each $1,302 $1,428 $126.15 9.7%
Per Hour $318 $349 $31.00 9.7%
Per Hour $318 $349 $31.00 9.7%
Each/% of Improv. Greater of $5655 or 5% of
cost of improvement
Greater of $6203 or 5% of
cost of improvement $548.00 9.7%
Each/% of Improv. Greater of $10729 or 5%
of cost of improvement
Greater of $11768 or 5%
of cost of improvement $1,039.00 9.7%
Each $1,589 $1,743 $153.95 9.7%
Per Hour $190 $208 $18.40 9.7%
Each *Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
*Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
Each $636 $697 $61.57 9.7%
Each $3,522 $3,863 $341.18 9.7%
Each $2,177 $2,388 $210.91 9.7%
Each $2,177 $2,388 $210.91 9.7%
Each $4,216 $4,624 $408.43 9.7%
Per Unit $6,797 $6,797 $0.00 0.0%
Per Unit $4,215 $4,215 $0.00 0.0%
Per s.f. $10.94 $10.94 $0.00 0.0%
Per s.f. $19.15 $19.15 $0.00 0.0%
Per Room $3,728 $3,728 $0.00 0.0%
Per trip $6,862 $6,862 $0.00 0.0%
Each $16 $16 $0.00 0.0%
Each $90 $90 $0.00 0.0%
Per Hour $318 $349 $30.83 9.7%
- Stand Alone Building Permit Review
- Hotel
- Other (per PM trip)
Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee)
- Single
- Annual Utility Company
- Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination
Transportation Impact Fee
- Single Family
- Multi-Family
(Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes)
- Retail
- Office
Public Works Confirmation
Annexation (plus County filing fee)
Certificates of Compliance
- Initial Review
- Finalize Certificates
Lot Line Adjustment
- Residential
- Commercial
Planning Application Review
VMT Monitoring Fee
Professional Services 3rd Party Consultant Review
*Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General - Tract Map (> 4 lots)
Plan Check and Inspection
Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews
Revisions to Plans and Permits
Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans:
- 10,000 s.f or greater
Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee)
- Parcel Map (1-4 lots)
- Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit
Street Cuts Miscellaneous
- Minor Street Cuts
- Major Street Cuts
- Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Permit Extension

FEE DESCRIPTION
Encroachment Permits
- Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets)
- Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility)
- Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors) - Work without Permit
Crane Lift
Grading permit
- <10,000 s.f. lot
203
CC 05-06-2025
203 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2024-25 Proposed
Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Each $738 $809 $71.47 9.7%
Deposit $4,571 $5,014 $442.87 9.7%
Each No Charge No Charge
Each $3,200 $3,510 $310.02 9.7%
Each $4,980 $5,462 $482.48 9.7%
Each $2,597 $2,848 $251.58 9.7%
Each $1,610 $1,766 $156.00 9.7%
Each $1,125 $1,234 $108.96 9.7%
Each $300 $329 $29.10 9.7%
Each $1,411 $1,548 $136.74 9.7%
Each $1,149 $1,260 $111.33 9.7%
Each No Charge No Charge
Each $466 $511 $45.17 9.7%
Dwelling unit $4,707 $4,669 -$37.18 -0.8%
Per acre $6,389 $6,339 -$50.48 -0.8%
Per acre and $4,584 $4,548 -$36.21 -0.8%
Per unit $347 $345 -$2.74 -0.8%
Per acre $12,344 $12,246 -$97.51 -0.8%
Per acre $4,704 $4,666 -$37.16 -0.8%
Per acre $2,375 $2,357 -$18.77 -0.8%
No charge No charge
Each $434 $476 $42.00 9.7%
Each $158 $173 $15.28 9.7%
Each $315 $346 $30.55 9.7%
Each $2,217 $2,432 $214.81 9.7%
Hour $291 $319 $28.20 9.7%
Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Single Family
Multi-Family
Storm Management Plan Fee
Public Works Staff Time
Public Facility Uses
Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial
Initial Inspection
Re-Inspection for Violations
Plan Review Fee
*Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre.

Commercial and Industrial
Public Educational Uses
Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning only) Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than 5.2 dwelling units per acre
Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre - Implementation phase
- Permit Parking Bi-annual Fee
Streamside Permit
Master Storm Drain Area Fees:

Certificate of Correction
Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review
Permit Parking Study
- Application Phase
- Summary Vacation
- Full Vacation
Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application
- Application Phase
- Implementation phase

FEE DESCRIPTION
Banners
- Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard
Special Events/Parades
Block Party
Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE
204
CC 05-06-2025
204 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2024-25 Proposed
Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
$105,000/DU $105,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$54,000/DU $54,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$30,000/DU $30,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$15,000 or proportional
to the size of the main
DU, whichever is less
$15,000 or proportional
to the size of the main
DU, whichever is less
$0.00 0.0%
Each $513 $562 $49.66 9.7%
Each Actual costs Actual costs
PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE:

This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees.

Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees:

Public Tree Damage Fee:

Public Tree Removal Fee:

FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values:

UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table
SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table
CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50
The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. 1 st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming, or replanting will apply. $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree.

The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating.

Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method.
* Park Land Dedication Fees are calculated per Municipal Code section 13.08. On an annual basis, Public Works Department updates the fair market value of land based on appraised values of land sales. ** ADU Park Land Dedication Fee is based on the density of the property per Municipal Code section 13.08, or proportionally to the size of the main dwelling unit as stipulated by State ADU mandates.

New Public Tree Cost Schedule:

Public Tree Planting Cost:
24" Street Tree
36" Street Tree or Larger
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 20
20+
Senior Citizen Housing Dev.

ADU 750 SF or more**

FEE DESCRIPTION
Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee*
Density of Dwelling Units/Ac
205
CC 05-06-2025
205 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply.

Unmodified Tree Value Table:

Tree size (diameter of trunk)
1” to 2” $348
2” to 3” $348
3” to 4” $1,039
4” to 5” $1,039
5” to 6” $1,404
6” to 7” $1,851
7” to 8” $2,378
8” to 9” $2,987
9” to 10” $3,677
10” to 11” $4,449
11” to 12” $5,301
12” to 13” $6,235
13” to 14” $7,249
14” to 15” $8,345
15” to 16” $9,522
16” to 17” $10,780
17” to 18” $12,120
18” to 19” $13,540
19” to 20” $15,042
20” to 21” $16,625
21” to 22” $18,290
22” to 23” $20,036
23” to 24” $21,862
24” to 25” $23,769
25” to 26” $25,758
26” to 27” $27,829
27” to 28” $29,980
28” to 29” $32,212
29” to 30” $34,527
30” to 31” $36,920
31” to 32” $39,396
32” to 33” $41,954
33” to 34” $44,593
34” to 35” $47,312
35” to 36” $50,113
36” to 37” $52,995
37” to 38” $55,958
38” to 39” $59,003
39” to 40” $62,128
Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch.

If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee.

If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter.

If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee.
206
CC 05-06-2025
206 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Acacia ACACIA 60
Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60
Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90
Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM** 100
Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90
Red maple ACER REBRUM 70
Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80
California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA** 100
Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90
Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA 0
Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50
Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80
Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90
Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100
Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75
Birch BETULA ALBA 60
Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80
Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75
Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA** 100
Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA** 100
Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65
Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70
Redbud(eastern) CERCIS CANADENSIS 75
Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70
Citrus CITRUS SP 40
English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70
Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80
Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80
Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40
Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60
Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70
Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60
Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40
Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80
Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD' 80
Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80
Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80
Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO' 80
Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80
Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80
Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70
Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70
English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40
Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70
Walnut JUGLANS 70
Species Rating Table
207
CC 05-06-2025
207 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70
Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80
Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE' 80
Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ' 80
Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA' 80
Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80
Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30
American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40
Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60
Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90
Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75
Magnolia (dwarf) MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75
Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75
Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90
Apple MALUS SP 40
Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70
Malaleuca(broad leaf) MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60
Malaleuca(narrow leaf) MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60
Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100
Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40
Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40
Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70
Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40
Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70
Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0
Palm PALM* 40
Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60
Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60
Spruce PICEA 80
Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80
Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 80
Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90
Pine PINUS SP 30
Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80
Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40
Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40
London plane 'colombiana' PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95
Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA** 100
London plane 'bloodgood' PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD' 95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75
Poplar POPULUS 60
Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80
Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40
Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50
Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40
Species Rating Table
208
CC 05-06-2025
208 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0
Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60
Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70
Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40
Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80
Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40
Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40
Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT' 75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD' 75
Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER' 75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75
Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40
Oak QUERCUS 90
Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA** 100
White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90
Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90
Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90
Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII** 100
Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90
Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90
Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII** 100
Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA** 100
Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90
Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90
Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100
Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI** 100
African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70
Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40
Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0
California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40
Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40
Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95
Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80
Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70
Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50
Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70
Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE' 90
Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70
Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60
Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA** 100
Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0
Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0
Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65
*All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species
Species Rating Table
209
CC 05-06-2025
209 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning

DEFINITIONS
P. Legal Noticing Fee: Assessed for all permit applications that require noticing (CMC Chapter 19.12).

Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria.

J. Project Review Meeting: Request for a one hour meeting by an applicant to review a project with City staff without any written K. Preliminary Review: One round of informal review of any proposed project with written feedback from City staff.

L. Temporary Sign Permit: A review of a temporary sign application for banners, A-frame signs and other temporary signs N. Extension Permit: A one-time one-year extension of the planning permit expiration date (CMC Chapter 19.12).

M. Sign Permit: For signs that require a public meeting such as freeway oriented signage, electronic readerboard signs etc. (CMC Chapter 19.104) F. Minor Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12).

H. Minor Modification: An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (CMC Chapter 19.164).

O. Appeal: A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by the approval authority. Fee Exemption for: an appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and City Council members. At the conclusion of a City Council appeal hearing, it may choose to, at its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee (CMC Chapter 19.12).

Q. Special Events Permit: A request to host a special event for no more than a total of 12 calendar days in a year including, but not limited to, employee holiday party, summer barbeque, any outdoor event where normal operations occur indoors, car sales/show event, events located in parking lots where such uses are not authorized ordinarily. Large events involve an entire shopping center, office or industrial buildings/sites, and other commercial sites.

Small events typically involve individual businesses/tenants in a shopping center or building. Staff reserves the right to determine the applicable event type based on the project description provided. Churches/non-profits operating on property in their control are exempt from fees.

R. Housing Mitigation Fee: A fee assessed in accordance with the City's General Plan Housing Element, Municipal Code (CMC 19.172) and the City's BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.

I. Exceptions: An exception to the zoning standards for which an exception process and findings are identified in the Municipal Code. These include Fence, Sign, Height, Hillside, Parking, R-1, A, A-1, and R1 cluster zone exceptions. This also includes exceptions identified in the City's Specific Plans (CMC Chapter 19.12 and Title 20).

G. Major Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of all other development projects (CMC Chapter 19.12).

A. Parcel Map: Subdivisions, including ministerial subdivisions - up to four (4) parcels (CMC Chapter 18.20).

B. Tentative map: Subdivisions - five (5) or more parcels (CMC Chapter 18.16).

C. Minor: for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or six or less residential units D. Major: for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12).

E. Minor Architectural and Site Approval - Duplex/Residential: Architectural approval of single family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12). 210
CC 05-06-2025
210 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description 1 Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Planning Staff Hourly Rate 2 Per Hour $290 $318 28.00 9.7% General Plan
Authorization Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate
Zoning
Zoning Map Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Text Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Single-Story Overlay District Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Study Session Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Subdivision
Parcel Map (See Definition A) Each $27,393 $30,047 2,654.00 9.7% Tentative Map (See Definition B) Each $47,078 $51,639 4,561.00 9.7% Conditional Use/Development Permit
Temporary Use Permit Each $5,081 $5,573 492.00 9.7%
Administrative Conditional Use Permit Each $10,722 $11,761 1,039.00 9.7% Minor (See Definition C) Each $25,755 $28,250 2,495.00 9.7% Major (See Definition D) Each $39,301 $43,109 3,808.00 9.7% Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Minor (See Definition C) Each $11,618 $12,744 1,126.00 9.7% Major (See Definition D) Each $25,071 $27,500 2,429.00 9.7% Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Minor Duplex / Residential (See Definition E) Each $10,692 $11,728 1,036.00 9.7% Minor (See Definition F) Each $16,683 $18,299 1,616.00 9.7% Major (See Definition G) Each $25,451 $27,917 2,466.00 9.7% Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Minor Residential Permit Each $4,024 $4,414 390.00 9.7% Two-Story Permit without Design Review Each $5,035 $5,523 488.00 9.7% Two-Story Permit with Design Review Each $6,149 $6,745 596.00 9.7% Director Minor Modification (See Definition H) Each $5,497 $6,030 533.00 9.7% Ministerial Residential Permit
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit Each $4,551 $4,992 441.00 9.7% Exceptions (See Definition I)
Fence Exception - R1 & R2 Each $4,673 $5,126 453.00 9.7% Fence Exception - Other Each $5,184 $5,686 502.00 9.7%
Sign Exception Each $6,981 $7,657 676.00 9.7%
R-1 Exception Each $7,821 $8,579 758.00 9.7%
Heart of the City Exception Each $25,126 $27,560 2,434.00 9.7% Hillside Exception Each $23,965 $26,287 2,322.00 9.7%
Exception - Other Each $7,942 $8,711 769.00 9.7%
Variance Each $9,081 $9,961 880.00 9.7%
Reasonable Accommodation Each $1,803 $1,978 175.00 9.7% Project Review Meeting (See Definition J) Per Review $2,504.00 $2,747.00 243.00 9.7% Preliminary Application Review (See Definition K)
Single Family Per Review $2,534.00 $2,780.00 246.00 9.7% Non-Residential (Retail/Industrial/Office/Hotel)
<10,000 sf Per Review $5,491.00 $6,023.00 532.00 9.7%
>10,000 sf Per Review $9,550.00 $10,475.00 925.00 9.7%
Residential / Mixed Use:

Duplex Per Review $1,991.00 $2,184.00 193.00 9.7%
3-6 Units Per Review $8,777.00 $9,627.00 850.00 9.7%
6-50 Units Per Review $13,549.00 $14,862.00 1,313.00 9.7% >50 Units Per Review $19,556.00 $21,451.00 1,895.00 9.7% 211
CC 05-06-2025
211 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $424 $465 41.00 9.7%
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $167 $183 16.00 9.6%
Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $776 $851 75.00 9.7%
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $250 $274 24.00 9.6%
Retroactive Tree Removal Per Tree $5,520 $6,055 535.00 9.7% Heritage Tree Designation Each $422 $463 41.00 9.7%
Tree Management Plan Each $7,951 $8,721 770.00 9.7%
Signs
Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition L) Each $553 $607 54.00 9.8% Sign Permit (See Definition M) Each $7,532 $8,262 730.00 9.7% Sign Program Each $4,456 $4,888 432.00 9.7%
Planning Commission Interpretation Each $8,054 $8,834 780.00 9.7% Extension of Approved Entitlements (See Definition N) Each $2,103 $2,307 204.00 9.7% Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee) Each $401 $440 39.00 9.7% Appeals (See Definition O)
Planning Commission Each $505 $554 49.00 9.7%
City Council Each $505 $554 49.00 9.7%
Miscellaneous Fees
Legal Noticing Fee (See Definition P) Each $527 $578 51.00 9.7% Mercury News Ad Each Actual Cost + Admin
Fee
Actual Cost + Admin
Fee
Zoning Verification Letter Each $583 $639 56.00 9.6%
Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License) Each $291 $319 28.00 9.6% Short-Term Rental Each $409 $449 40.00 9.8%
Mobile Vending Registration Fee Each $548 $601 53.00 9.7% Special Events (See Definition Q) Sition Qe Def
Large Event Each $4,886.00 $5,359.00 473.00 9.7%
Small Event Each $500.00 $500.00 0.00 0.0%
Planning Inspection Per Inspection $430.00 $472.00 42.00 9.8% Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Fees Assessed with Building Permits
Wireless Master Plan Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) Equipment Mounted on Existing Light/Utility Pole Each $10.28 $11.28 1.00 9.7% New Personal Wireless Facility (not mounted on light/utility pole) Each $2,241 $2,458 217.00 9.7% Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) All Non-Residential and Multi-Family Per s.f. $1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% Residential Single Family Per s.f. $1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% General Plan Office Allocation Fee Per s.f. $1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)
Each 20% of Plan Check and
Inspection fees
20% of Plan Check and
Inspection fees
212
CC 05-06-2025
212 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 3
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees 2 (See Definition R)
Residential - Ownership
Detached Single Family Residence Per s.f. $21.87 $22.45 0.59 2.7% Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome Per s.f. $24.05 $24.70 0.65 2.7% Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7%
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7%
Residential - Rental
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7%
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $36.44 $37.42 0.98 2.7%
Non-Residential
Office, Research and Development, or Industrial Per s.f. $34.55 $35.48 0.93 2.7% Hotel Per s.f. $17.28 $17.74 0.46 2.7%
Self-storage, employee unit provided Per s.f. $0.65 $0.66 0.02 2.7% Self-storage, employee unit not provided Per s.f. $1.36 $1.40 0.04 2.7% Warehouse Per s.f. $48.00 $49.29 1.29 2.7%
Commercial/Retail Per s.f. $14.58 $14.97 0.39 2.7%
1Based on 2023 Fee and Cost Allocation Plan Study by Matrix Consulting 1 All application fees except those project subject to the Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee (see note 2) allow for two rounds of review. Any submissions beyond two shall be subject to a fee equal to 50% of the total permit fees paid initially.
2Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project. The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project. The applicant will be required to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City for such projects. 3All Housing Mitigation Fees are assessed in accordance with the BMR Housing Mitigation Manual. Non-residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 and the 2020 Supplement to the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis by Keyser Marsten. Residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 Nexus Study. These fees increase automatically annually (on July 1 of each year) by the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers for San Francisco, CA.

If plans are submitted on paper, these must be sent to an outside agency for scanning. The cost of scanning the plans, plus the administrative fee per Schedule A - General Fees will be charged.

An administrative fee (15%) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services/outside services (ads etc.) per Schedule A - General Fees. 213
CC 05-06-2025
213 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
A Assembly 250 $128 $4,565 $4,297 $121.73 $127.39
1,250 $256 $5,782 $5,443 $121.73 $137.51
2,500 $256 $7,304 $7,162 $97.38 $5.12
5,000 $384 $9,738 $7,162 $24.35 $38.20
12,500 $384 $11,564 $10,027 $21.91 $33.11
25,000 $512 $14,303 $14,037 $57.21 $58.20
A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $256 $3,652 $4,297 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,729 $48.69 $80.21
5,000 $512 $5,782 $7,735 $42.60 $5.12
10,000 $768 $7,912 $7,735 $8.12 $21.01
25,000 $768 $9,129 $10,886 $8.52 $18.21
50,000 $1,024 $11,260 $15,183 $22.52 $32.41
B Business 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $56.53
5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $42.60 $51.57
10,000 $512 $9,434 $10,886 $33.47 $28.34
20,000 $768 $12,781 $13,464 $7.10 $6.68
50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $7.30 $12.54
100,000 $1,024 $18,563 $21,486 $18.56 $22.51
B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $101.44 $130.03 1,500 $256 $5,782 $4,870 $101.44 $76.39
3,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $91.29 $4.27
6,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $16.91 $28.65
15,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $18.26 $21.86
30,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $47.68 $40.86
E Educational 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48
500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77
1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,302 $273.88 $12.80
2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94
5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,881 $54.78 $71.31
10,000 $512 $14,303 $12,318 $143.03 $128.30
E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,347 $3,438 $228.23 $246.86 500 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $243.45 $286.47
1,000 $256 $5,478 $5,729 $182.59 $12.80
2,000 $384 $7,304 $5,729 $40.58 $76.39
5,000 $384 $8,521 $8,021 $42.60 $65.58
10,000 $512 $10,651 $11,172 $106.51 $116.85
F Factory Industrial 1,000 $256 $6,391 $6,589 $22.82 $49.37 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $36.52 $51.57
10,000 $512 $9,129 $10,886 $39.56 $28.34
20,000 $768 $13,085 $13,464 $6.09 $6.68
50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $3.65 $12.54
100,000 $1,024 $16,737 $21,486 $16.74 $22.51
F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $256 $5,173 $5,157 $30.43 $49.37 5,000 $512 $6,391 $6,875 $36.52 $45.84
10,000 $512 $8,216 $9,167 $30.43 $2.56
20,000 $768 $11,260 $9,167 $6.09 $12.41
50,000 $768 $13,085 $12,891 $6.09 $10.83
100,000 $1,024 $16,129 $18,048 $16.13 $19.07
H High Hazard 100 $128 $6,391 $4,584 $380.39 $390.10
500 $256 $7,912 $6,016 $486.90 $343.77
1,000 $256 $10,347 $7,735 $365.18 $12.80
2,000 $384 $13,998 $7,735 $81.15 $105.04
5,000 $384 $16,433 $10,886 $79.12 $88.50
10,000 $512 $20,389 $15,183 $203.89 $156.95
H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,652 $3,438 $228.23 $318.48 500 $256 $4,565 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77
1,000 $256 $6,086 $6,302 $213.02 $12.80
2,000 $384 $8,216 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94
5,000 $384 $9,738 $8,881 $42.60 $71.31
10,000 $512 $11,868 $12,318 $118.68 $128.30
I Institutional 500 $256 $7,304 $4,870 $91.29 $98.74
2,500 $512 $9,129 $6,589 $109.55 $80.21
5,000 $512 $11,868 $8,594 $85.21 $5.12
10,000 $768 $16,129 $8,594 $18.26 $24.83
25,000 $768 $18,867 $12,318 $18.26 $19.36
50,000 $1,024 $23,432 $16,902 $46.86 $35.85
I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $286.47
1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $273.88 $12.80
2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $50.72 $85.94
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
214
CC 05-06-2025
214 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $54.78 $65.58
10,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $143.03 $122.57
M Mercantile 2,000 $384 $8,521 $7,162 $30.43 $29.87
10,000 $768 $10,955 $9,167 $30.43 $31.51
20,000 $768 $13,998 $12,318 $24.35 $1.92
40,000 $1,152 $18,867 $12,318 $5.58 $8.59
100,000 $1,152 $22,215 $17,475 $5.48 $7.26
200,000 $1,536 $27,692 $24,350 $13.85 $12.94
M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $76.08 $140.70 1,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $101.44 $114.59
3,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $71.01 $8.53
6,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $16.91 $35.01
15,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $14.20 $26.53
30,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $39.56 $50.20
R-1 Residential—Hotels & Motels 3,000 $384 $10,042 $8,308 $22.82 $24.69 15,000 $768 $12,781 $10,886 $24.35 $22.92
30,000 $768 $16,433 $14,324 $19.27 $1.28
60,000 $1,152 $22,215 $14,324 $4.06 $6.68
150,000 $1,152 $25,867 $20,340 $4.26 $5.60
300,000 $1,536 $32,257 $28,361 $10.75 $9.97
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $7,912 $6,589 $66.57 $70.67 4,000 $512 $10,042 $8,594 $76.08 $64.46
8,000 $512 $13,085 $11,172 $57.06 $3.20
16,000 $768 $17,650 $11,172 $12.68 $19.10
40,000 $768 $20,693 $15,756 $12.93 $16.40
80,000 $1,024 $25,867 $22,059 $32.33 $28.85
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $304 $6,589 $0.00 $70.67 - Repeat Unit 4,000 $512 $304 $8,594 $0.00 $64.46
8,000 $512 $304 $11,172 $0.00 $3.20
16,000 $768 $304 $11,172 $1.27 $19.10
40,000 $768 $609 $15,756 $0.00 $16.40
80,000 $1,024 $609 $22,059 $0.76 $28.85
R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes, Models, 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,875 $20.29 $57.29 First Master Plan 2,500 $256 $6,086 $7,735 $81.15 $57.29 4,000 $256 $7,304 $8,594 $15.22 $84.42
6,000 $512 $7,608 $10,027 $60.86 $28.65
8,000 $512 $8,825 $10,600 $15.22 $84.42
10,000 $768 $9,129 $12,032 $91.29 $128.00
R-3 Dwellings—Production Phase 1,000 $128 $609 $4,870 $0.00 $123.12 of Master Plan (Repeats) 2,500 $256 $609 $6,589 $20.29 $133.69 4,000 $256 $913 $8,594 $15.22 $12.80
6,000 $512 $1,217 $8,594 $15.22 $186.21
8,000 $512 $1,522 $12,318 $15.22 $241.98
10,000 $768 $1,826 $16,902 $18.26 $176.70
R-3 Group Care 1,000 $256 $6,695 $6,589 $45.65 $63.70
5,000 $512 $8,521 $8,881 $48.69 $51.57
10,000 $512 $10,955 $11,459 $39.56 $2.56
20,000 $768 $14,911 $11,459 $8.12 $16.23
50,000 $768 $17,346 $16,329 $8.52 $13.12
100,000 $1,024 $21,606 $22,631 $21.61 $23.66
R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 80 $256 $2,739 $3,724 $190.20 $358.09 400 $256 $3,347 $4,870 $228.23 $358.09
800 $256 $4,260 $6,302 $190.20 $32.00
1,600 $512 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $119.36
4,000 $512 $6,695 $9,167 $45.65 $85.18
8,000 $768 $8,521 $12,318 $106.51 $163.58
S Storage 600 $256 $5,173 $4,584 $63.40 $70.35
3,000 $512 $6,695 $6,016 $60.86 $66.84
6,000 $512 $8,521 $8,021 $50.72 $4.27
12,000 $768 $11,564 $8,021 $10.14 $19.10
30,000 $768 $13,390 $11,459 $11.16 $15.18
60,000 $1,024 $16,737 $15,756 $27.90 $27.97
S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 600 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $50.72 $70.35 3,000 $512 $5,478 $5,729 $50.72 $66.84
6,000 $512 $6,999 $7,735 $40.58 $4.27
12,000 $768 $9,434 $7,735 $8.45 $17.51
30,000 $768 $10,955 $10,886 $9.13 $15.18
60,000 $1,024 $13,694 $15,183 $22.82 $27.01
U Accessory 40
200
215
CC 05-06-2025
215 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
400
800
1,000 $256 $2,435 $4,011 $30.43 $184.69
2,000 $384 $2,739 $5,729 $45.65 $120.99
4,000 $512 $3,652 $8,021 $91.29 $213.33
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,043 $4,297 $30.43 $84.42 w/o Podium 2,500 $512 $3,652 $5,729 $48.69 $68.75
5,000 $512 $4,869 $7,448 $36.52 $5.12
10,000 $768 $6,695 $7,448 $6.09 $21.01
25,000 $768 $7,608 $10,600 $7.30 $17.07
50,000 $1,024 $9,434 $14,610 $18.87 $31.27
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,347 $4,584 $45.65 $84.42 with Podium 2,500 $512 $4,260 $6,016 $48.69 $80.21
5,000 $512 $5,478 $8,021 $36.52 $5.12
10,000 $768 $7,304 $8,021 $8.12 $22.92
25,000 $768 $8,521 $11,459 $8.52 $18.21
50,000 $1,024 $10,651 $15,756 $21.30 $33.56
All Shell Buildings 500 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $60.86 $68.75
5,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $42.60 $5.12
10,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $10.14 $21.01
25,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $8.52 $15.92
50,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $23.74 $30.12
1 At Building Permit submittal, a Planning Division Review fee of 20% shall be collected (see Table 3 - Misc. Items) 2 Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. 216
CC 05-06-2025
216 of 554

FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Prop. Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

MECHANICAL FEES
Mechanical Permit Fee per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Other Mechanical Inspections (hourly rate) per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% MECHANICAL UNIT FEES:

Install or relocate HVAC system or portion there of
Residential each $261 $286 25.00 9.6%
Commercial each $392 $430 38.00 9.7%
Hood installation that is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood
Residential each $131 $144 13.00 9.9%
Commercial each $522 $573 51.00 9.8%
Any other piece of equipment or appliance not listed in Mechanical schedule. each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Electrical Permit Fee each $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Electrical Plan Check per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Electrical Inspections per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
ELECTRICAL UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Rewire (up to 2500 sq ft) each $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters
First 20 first 20 $87 $95 8.00 9.2%
Each Additional each $9 $10 1.00 11.1%
Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp-holding devices First 20 first 20 $131 $144 13.00 9.9%
Each Additional each $9 $10 1.00 11.1%
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each $30 $33 3.00 10.0% Appliances (Install / Repair / Replace)
Residential each $44 $48 4.00 9.1%
Commercial each $86 $94 8.00 9.3%
Power Apparatus - Generator/Transformer or Similar (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential each $261 $286 25.00 9.6%
Commercial each $392 $430 38.00 9.7%
Services (including Temporary Power)
600 volts or less, up to 200 amperes in rating each $87 $95 8.00 9.2% 600 volts or less, 201 to 1000 amperes in rating each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating each $392 $430 38.00 9.7% Any other Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors not listed in Electrical Schedule.
each $261 $286 25.00 9.6%

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees

ELECTRICAL FEES
217
CC 05-06-2025
217 of 554

FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Prop. Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees

PLUMBING/GAS FEES
Plumbing/Gas Permit Fee each $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% PLUMBING/GAS UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Water Re-Pipe(up to 2500 sq ft) each $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Building sewer lateral (Install / Repair / Replace)
Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2%
Commercial each $131 $144 13.00 9.9%
Sewer Clean-out (Install/Repair/Replace)
Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2%
Commercial each $131 $144 13.00 9.9%
Building Drain/Waste/Vent Repair
Residential per fixture $18 $20 2.00 11.1%
Commercial per fixture $26 $29 3.00 11.5%
Water Heater Replacement / Installation - All Types
Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2%
Commercial each $196 $215 19.00 9.7%
Interceptors - Grease/Sand (Install/Repair/Replace) each $196 $215 19.00 9.7% Water Treatment System (Install/Repair/Replace) each $87 $95 8.00 9.2% Gas piping (Install/Repair/Replace) each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Install or Replace Water Meter / Service each $65 $71 6.00 9.2% Partial Water Re-pipe
Residential per fixture $26 $29 3.00 11.5%
Commercial per fixture $17 $19 2.00 11.8%
Any other device/fixture not listed in Plumbing Schedule (Install/Repair/Replace) each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% 218
CC 05-06-2025
218 of 554
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Standard Hourly Rate - Building Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Accessibility Hardship Exemption Each $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Acoustical Review
Single Family Home/Duplex—New Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Single Family Home/Duplex—Addition/Alteration Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% Multi-Family/Commercial Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6%
Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) Each $1,159 $2,029 870.00 75.1% Plan Check Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,236 $3,879 1,643.00 73.5% Plan Check Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $2,767 $4,343 1,576.00 57.0% Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) Each $1,874 $2,789 915.00 48.8% Inspection Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,392 $3,665 1,273.00 53.2% Inspection Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $2,990 $4,581 1,591.00 53.2% Accessory Buildings - Residential
Accessory Buildings (Up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $1,716 $1,882 166.00 9.7% Accessory Buildings (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $2,516 $2,760 244.00 9.7% Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Plan Check Fees
Plan Check Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,453 $2,691 238.00 9.7% Plan Check Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $3,563 $3,908 345.00 9.7% Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Inspection Fees
Inspection Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,612 $2,865 253.00 9.7% Inspection Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $3,656 $4,010 354.00 9.7% Address Assignment Per hour $233 $256 23.00 9.9%
Board of Appeals Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Clerical Fee 1/2 hour $117 $128 11.00 9.4%
Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Per hour $255 $280 25.00 9.8% Antenna—Telecom Facility
Radio Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6%
Cellular/Mobile Phone, alterations to existing facility Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing Each $2,271 $2,491 220.00 9.7% Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Arbor/Trellis Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6%
Awning/Canopy (supported by building) Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Balcony Addition Each $1,588 $1,742 154.00 9.7%
Battery Energy Storage System up to three (3) $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Each Additional Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6%
Below Market Rate
Escrow Inspection % of Sale Price 0.52% 0.52%
Carport Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Certifications
Special Inspector Qualifications (initial review) Each $511 $561 50.00 9.8% Special Inspector Qualifications (renewal / update) Each $233 $256 23.00 9.9% Chimney (new) Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Chimney Repair Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Commercial Coach (per unit) Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Covered Porch Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Deck (wood) Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Deck Railing Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
219
CC 05-06-2025
219 of 554
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Deferred Submittal (2 hour minimum) Each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Demolition
Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Base $772 $847 75.00 9.7% Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Residential (R-3 Occ) (up to 3,000 sf) Base $772 $847 75.00 9.7% Residential (R-3 Occ) (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Swimming Pool Residential Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Base $778 $853 75.00 9.6% Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Disabled Access Compliance Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Door
New door (non structural) Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6%
New door (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Each $117 $128 11.00 9.4% Electric Vehicle Charging Station Each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Extensions
Plan Check Applications (within 180 days of Submittal) 1 hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Permits (within 180 days of Issuance)
Start construction, without plans 1/2 hour $139 $152 13.00 9.4% Resume or complete construction, without plans 1/2 hour $139 $152 13.00 9.4% Start construction, with plans 1 hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Resume or complete construction, with plans 2 hours $555 $609 54.00 9.7% Fence
Non-masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f. $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Non-masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f. $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Fireplace
Masonry each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Pre-Fabricated/Metal each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Flag pole (over 20 feet in height) each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Foundation Repair each $1,178 $1,292 114.00 9.7%
Inspections
Pre-Inspection Fee Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Standard Inspection Hourly Rate Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Progress Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Partial Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Courtesy Inspection - 2 hour minimum Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Cancelled inspection w/out advance notice Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Reinspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Outside of normal business hours (4 hour minimum) Per hour $308 $338 30.00 9.7% Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Each Additional hour Per hour $261 $286 25.00 9.6%
Lighting pole Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6%
each additional pole Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7%
Modular Structures Each $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6%
Modification of Technical Code 1 hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Occupancy
Certificate of Occupancy/Completion Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% 220
CC 05-06-2025
220 of 554
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Temporary Occupancy Permit Per six months $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Partition—Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) Up to 30 l.f. $786 $862 76.00 9.7% Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $261 $286 25.00 9.6%
Partition—Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) Up to 30 l.f. $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $261 $286 25.00 9.6%
Patio Cover / Gazebo
Wood frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6%
Metal frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6%
Other frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6%
Additional patio Each 300 sf $400 $439 39.00 9.8%
Enclosed prefabricated Sun Room Up to 300 sf $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Photovoltaic System
Residential:

Systems up to 15kW Each $450 $450 0.00 0.0%
Each Additional kW Above 15kW Each Addl kW $15 $15 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family and Commercial:

Systems up to 50kW up to 8 kW Each $1,000 $1,000 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt Each 1 addl kW $7 $7 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 250kW Each addl kW $5 $5 0.00 0.0% Thermal System
Residential:

Systems up to 10kW Each $450 $450 0.00 0.0%
Each Additional kW Above 10kW Each addl kW $15 $15 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family and Commercial:

Systems up to 30kW Each $1,000 $1,000 0.00 0.0%
Each Additional kW between 30kW and 260kW Each addl kW $7 $7 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 260kW Each addl kW $5 $5 0.00 0.0% Pile Foundation
Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles) Up to 10 $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete) Up to 10 $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Product Review Per hour $255 $280 25.00 9.8%
Plan Review
Standard Plan Review Hourly Rate Per hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Overtime Plan Review (4 hour minimum) Per hour $325 $356 31.00 9.5% Pre-Submittal Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Expedited Plan Review Each 1.5x Plan
Check Fee

1.5x Plan
Check Fee
Plan Review Supplemental Fee (after 2nd review)
First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $278 $305 27.00 9.7% Pre-Construction Meeting Each $450 $494 44.00 9.8%
Remodel—Residential
Kitchen (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $1,039 $1,140 101.00 9.7% Bath (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $1,039 $1,140 101.00 9.7% Other Remodel (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 300) Per s.f. $2.29 $2.51 0.22 9.7% Other Remodel (1000 sq. ft.) Each $2,516 $2,760 244.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 1000) Per s.f. $0.53 $0.58 0.05 9.7% Other Remodel (2500+ sq. ft.) Each $3,316 $3,637 321.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 2500) Per s.f. $0.27 $0.29 0.03 9.7% 221
CC 05-06-2025
221 of 554
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Re-roof
Residential (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $25 $27 2.00 8.0% Multi-Family Dwelling (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $25 $27 2.00 8.0% Commercial
Commercial (first 5,000 sf) Each $639 $701 62.00 9.7%
Commercial (each additional 2,500 sf) Each 2,500 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry)
Standard (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,733 $1,901 168.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $1,061 $1,164 103.00 9.7% Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,994 $2,187 193.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $1,322 $1,450 128.00 9.7% Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,733 $1,901 168.00 9.7% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $1,061 $1,164 103.00 9.7% Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,994 $2,187 193.00 9.7% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $1,322 $1,450 128.00 9.7% Revisions $266 $292 26.00 9.8%
Sauna—steam Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Siding
Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior) Up to 400 sf $639 $701 62.00 9.7% All Other Up to 400 sf $508 $557 49.00 9.6%
Additional siding Each 400 sf $131 $144 13.00 9.9%
Signs
Directional Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Each additional Directional Sign Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Ground/Roof/Projecting Signs Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Master Plan Sign Check Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Rework of any existing Ground Sign Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Other Sign Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Reinspection Fee Each $124 $136 12.00 9.7%
Wall/Awning Sign, Non-Electric Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% Wall/Awning Sign, Electric Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Skylight
50 sf or less (cumulative area) Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Greater than 50 sf or structural Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Stairs—First Flight First flight $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
Each additional flight Per flight $269 $295 26.00 9.7%
Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f. $655 $718 63.00 9.6% each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $131 $144 13.00 9.9% over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f. $786 $862 76.00 9.7% each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Stucco Applications
Base Up to 400 sf $508 $557 49.00 9.6%
Additional Stucco Application Each 400 sf $131 $144 13.00 9.9% 222
CC 05-06-2025
222 of 554
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Swimming Pool/Spa
Vinyl-lined Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7%
Fiberglass Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7%
Gunite (up to 800 sf) Each $1,716 $1,882 166.00 9.7%
Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $400 $439 39.00 9.8% Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) Each $2,910 $3,192 282.00 9.7% Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated) Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Temporary Structures Each $786 $862 76.00 9.7%
Tenant Improvement Preparation Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Window or Sliding Glass Door
Replacement (first 8 windows) First 8 $378 $415 37.00 9.8% Replacement (each additional 8 windows) Each 8 $131 $144 13.00 9.9% New Window (non structural) Each $324 $355 31.00 9.6%
New window (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6% Bay Window (structural) Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6%
Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)
Each
20% of plan
review and
inspection fees
20% of plan
review and
inspection fees
Planning Hourly Rate (Misc Reviews) Per hour Refer to
Schedule C
Refer to
Schedule C
Housing Mitigation In-lieu fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Per sq. ft. Refer to Schedule C
Refer to
Schedule C
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Per sq. ft. Refer to Schedule C
Refer to
Schedule C
Wireless Master Plan fee (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Each Refer to Schedule C
Refer to
Schedule C
Refunds - Plan Check Fees
1st review not started (within 3 Business of Submittal) 100% of Plan Review Fees Plan review more than 3 Business Days after the Date of Submittal No refund Refunds - Building Permit Fees
No inspections and permit is active (not expired) 80% of permit fees No inspections and permit is expired No refund
Inspections were provided No refund
Work without permit - based on current permit and plan check fees Double fees NOTE:

Fee Adjustments: In instances where the strict application of fees from this schedule would constitute a substantial inequity to an applicant or to the City, the Chief Building Official shall be authorized to adjust such fees on a case-by-case basis. Any such adjustments shall be recorded in writing and entered into the appropriate files.

Fees identified in this Table consist of 50% Plan Review Fee and 50% Inspection Fee 223
CC 05-06-2025
223 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
All Municipal Code Parking Violations (including County and State fees) Each $85.04 Animal Establishment Permit Each $378.98
Annual Lobbyist Registration Fee Per Lobbyist $304.84
Bingo Permit Annual $268.44
Business License Database Each $31.24
Candidate Statement Fee (County Regulated Fee) Each Current County Registrar Cost City Administrative Fee Each 15%
Code Enforcement
Abatement/Graffiti Cleanup Each Actual Cost *
Hourly rate Hourly $252.65
Substandard Housing Re-Inspection Each $252.65
Community Festivals - One-time Business License (correction) Each $13.23 Community Festivals - Business Partners Each $67.49
Community Festivals - Additional 10' x 10' space (includes an additional table and 2 chairs) Each $12.17 Community Festivals - Non-profit partners Each $12.17
Compilation of New Records Each Actual Cost *
Credit Card Transaction Fee Each 3.40%
CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin Fee (State Regulated Fee) Each $25.00 Damage to City Property
Grounds, Streets, Facilities, Traffic Engineering/Maintenance Each Actual Cost * Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee Annual $505.30
Sign Each $25.57
Duplicate Business Licenses Each $15.62
Event Video Taping/Editing Each Actual Cost *
False Alarms Each $124.95
Farmers Market Each $3.38
Fingerprinting Processing (State Fee $32 plus County Fee $20) Each $75.05 Flea Markets Each $14.31
Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps
Plotted maps Per Map $38.10
Printed maps Per Map $5.08
Custom request maps Per Map Actual Cost *
Prints/plots of aerial photography (see Engineering fees) Per Map Actual Cost * Handbill Permit Each $252.65
Renewals Each $126.33
Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices Each 12% per annum Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting/background check and business start-up inspection)
Each $568.47
Renewals (Includes two inspections per year) Each $189.49 Massage Managing Employee (Includes fingerprint/background check) Each $505.30 Renewals Each $189.49
Massage Permit Appeal (Denial/Revocation) Each $1,263.26 Municipal Code Book Per Book Vendor Invoice
New Business Monthly Reports Each $46.86
Noise Variances/Special Exceptions Each $259.16
Notary Fee (State Regulated Fee) Per Signature $15.00/signature Outside Agency Review / Services Vendor Invoice + City Admin Fee
Petitions for Reconsideration Each $386.17
Permit Update Each $126.33
224
CC 05-06-2025
224 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Photocopies - per sheet
Standard sizes Per Page $0.30
For 11 x 17 sizes or color sheets Per Page $0.70
For Large format prints Per Page $35.29
Fair Political Practices Commission Per Page $0.11
Fair Political Practices Commission (older than five (5) years) Per Page $5.26 Property Liens Administrative Fee Each $252.65
Returned Check Charge
First returned check Each $25.00
Subsequent checks Each $35.00
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) (All except Political Signs) Each $25.00 Sign Recovery Fee for Political Signs Each $25.00
Small Income Business License Each $94.49
Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting) Each $505.30 Renewals Each $126.33
Taxi Driver Permit (Includes fingerprinting/background check) Each $1,010.61 Renewals Each $126.33
Tobacco Retailer (County Regulated Fee)
Application Fee Each Current County Cost
Annual Fee Annual Current County Cost
Williamson Act Filings Each $149.83
Video/Audio Service
DVD/CD Each $26.45
Flash Drive Each $28.55
* Actual cost is: 1) Fully burdened employee costs as calculated through the 2023 Cost Allocation Plan, and 2) cost of materials, contractors, and supplies.
225
CC 05-06-2025
225 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Each $667
Each $461
Each $1,172
Each Double the permit cost
Each $2,432
Each $1,916
Each $3,895
Each/% of Project
5% of Project Costs and/or
$282 per inspection
Per Permit $579
Crane Lift No Charge No Charge
Each $1,483
Each/% of Improv.

Greater of $5365 or 6% of
cost of improvement
Each $9,195
Each $15,013
Each $1,428
Per Hour $349
Per Hour $349
Each/% of Improv.

Greater of $6203 or 5% of
cost of improvement
Each/% of Improv.

Greater of $11768 or 5% of
cost of improvement
Each $1,743
Per Hour $208
Each
*Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
Each $697
Each $3,863
Each $2,388
Each $2,388
Each $4,624
Per Unit $6,797
Per Unit $4,215
Per s.f. $10.94
Per s.f. $19.15
Per Room $3,728
Per trip $6,862
Each $16
Each $90
Per Hour $349
- Other (per PM trip)
Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee)
- Single
- Annual Utility Company
- Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination
- Single Family
- Multi-Family
(Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes)
- Retail
- Office
- Hotel
Annexation (plus County filing fee)
Certificates of Compliance
- Initial Review
- Finalize Certificates
Lot Line Adjustment
Transportation Impact Fee
- Commercial
Planning Application Review
VMT Monitoring Fee
Professional Services 3rd Party Consultant Review
*Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General Public Works Confirmation
Plan Check and Inspection
- Stand Alone Building Permit Review
Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews
Revisions to Plans and Permits
Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans:
- Residential
Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee)
- Parcel Map (1-4 lots)
- Tract Map (> 4 lots)
- Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit
Street Cuts Miscellaneous
- Minor Street Cuts
- Major Street Cuts
- Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Permit Extension

FEE DESCRIPTION
Encroachment Permits
- Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets)
- Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility)
- Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors) - Work without Permit
Grading permit
- <10,000 s.f. lot
- 10,000 s.f or greater
226
CC 05-06-2025
226 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Each $809
Deposit $5,014
Each No Charge
Each $3,510
Each $5,462
Each $2,848
Each $1,766
Each $1,234
Each $329
Each $1,548
Each $1,260
Each $511
Dwelling unit $4,669
Per acre $6,339
Per acre and $4,548
Per unit $345
Per acre $12,246
Per acre $4,666
Per acre $2,357
No charge
Each $476
Each $173
Each $346
Each $2,432
Hour $319
Per Permit 5.8%
Storm Management Plan Fee
Public Works Staff Time
Technology Fee
Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial
Initial Inspection
Re-Inspection for Violations
Plan Review Fee
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial and Industrial
Public Educational Uses
Public Facility Uses
Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre.

Streamside Permit
Master Storm Drain Area Fees:

Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review
Permit Parking Study
- Application Phase
- Implementation phase
- Full Vacation
Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application
- Application Phase
- Implementation phase
Certificate of Correction
Banners
- Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard
Special Events/Parades
Block Party
Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE
- Summary Vacation

FEE DESCRIPTION
227
CC 05-06-2025
227 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Density of Dwelling Units/Ac
0 - 5 $105,000/DU
5 - 10 $60,000/DU
10 - 20 $60,000/DU
20+ $54,000/DU
Senior Citizen Housing Dev. $30,000/DU
$15,000 or proportional to
the size of the main DU,
whichever is less
$562
Actual costs
PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE:

This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees.

Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees:

Public Tree Damage Fee:

Public Tree Removal Fee:

FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values:

UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table
SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table
CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50
The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating.

Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method.

Public Tree Planting Cost:
24" Street Tree
36" Street Tree or Larger
1 st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming, or replanting will apply.
$100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree.

The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating.

Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee*
ADU 750 SF or more**
* Park Land Dedication Fees are calculated per Municipal Code section 13.08.

On an annual basis, Public Works Department updates the fair market value of ** ADU Park Land Dedication Fee is based on the density of the property per Municipal Code section 13.08, or proportionally to the size of the main dwelling New Public Tree Cost Schedule:
228
CC 05-06-2025
228 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply.

Unmodified Tree Value Table:

Tree size (diameter of trunk)
1” to 2” $348
2” to 3” $348
3” to 4” $1,039
4” to 5” $1,039
5” to 6” $1,404
6” to 7” $1,851
7” to 8” $2,378
8” to 9” $2,987
9” to 10” $3,677
10” to 11” $4,449
11” to 12” $5,301
12” to 13” $6,235
13” to 14” $7,249
14” to 15” $8,345
15” to 16” $9,522
16” to 17” $10,780
17” to 18” $12,120
18” to 19” $13,540
19” to 20” $15,042
20” to 21” $16,625
21” to 22” $18,290
22” to 23” $20,036
23” to 24” $21,862
24” to 25” $23,769
25” to 26” $25,758
26” to 27” $27,829
27” to 28” $29,980
28” to 29” $32,212
29” to 30” $34,527
30” to 31” $36,920
31” to 32” $39,396
32” to 33” $41,954
33” to 34” $44,593
34” to 35” $47,312
35” to 36” $50,113
36” to 37” $52,995
37” to 38” $55,958
38” to 39” $59,003
39” to 40” $62,128
Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch.

If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee.

If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter.

If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee.
229
CC 05-06-2025
229 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Acacia ACACIA 60
Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60
Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90
Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM** 100
Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90
Red maple ACER REBRUM 70
Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80
California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA** 100
Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90
Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA
0 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50
Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80
Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90
Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100
Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75
Birch BETULA ALBA 60
Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80
Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75
Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA** 100
Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA** 100
Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65
Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70
Redbud(eastern) CERCIS CANADENSIS 75
Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70
Citrus CITRUS SP 40
English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70
Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80
Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80
Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40
Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60
Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70
Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60
Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40
Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80
Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD' 80
Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80
Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80
Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO' 80
Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80
Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80
Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70
Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70
English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40
Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70
Walnut JUGLANS 70
Species Rating Table
230
CC 05-06-2025
230 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70
Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80
Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE' 80
Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ' 80
Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA' 80
Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80
Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30
American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40
Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60
Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90
Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75
Magnolia (dwarf) MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75
Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75
Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90
Apple MALUS SP 40
Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70
Malaleuca(broad leaf) MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60
Malaleuca(narrow leaf) MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60
Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100
Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40
Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40
Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70
Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40
Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70
Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0
Palm PALM* 40
Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60
Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60
Spruce PICEA 80
Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80
Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA' 80
Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90
Pine PINUS SP 30
Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80
Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40
Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40
London plane 'colombiana' PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95
Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA** 100
London plane 'bloodgood' PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD' 95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75
Poplar POPULUS 60
Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80
Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40
Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50
Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40
Species Rating Table
231
CC 05-06-2025
231 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Common Name Species Rating%
Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0
Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60
Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70
Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40
Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80
Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40
Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40
Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT' 75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD' 75
Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER' 75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75
Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40
Oak QUERCUS 90
Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA** 100
White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90
Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90
Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90
Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII** 100
Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90
Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90
Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII** 100
Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA** 100
Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90
Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90
Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100
Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI** 100
African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70
Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40
Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0
California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40
Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40
Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95
Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80
Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70
Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50
Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70
Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE' 90
Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70
Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60
Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA** 100
Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0
Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0
Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65
*All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species
Species Rating Table
232
CC 05-06-2025
232 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning

DEFINITIONS
A. Parcel Map: Subdivisions, including ministerial subdivisions - up to four (4) parcels (CMC Chapter 18.20).

B. Tentative map: Subdivisions - five (5) or more parcels (CMC Chapter 18.16).

P. Legal Noticing Fee: Assessed for all permit applications that require noticing (CMC Chapter 19.12).

O. Appeal: A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by the approval authority. Fee Exemption for: an appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and City Council members. At the conclusion of a City Council appeal hearing, it may choose to, at its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee (CMC Chapter 19.12).

N. Extension Permit: A one-time one-year extension of the planning permit expiration date (CMC Chapter 19.12).

C. Minor: for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or six or fewer residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12)
D. Major: for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12).

E. Minor Architectural and Site Approval - Duplex/Residential: Architectural approval of single family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12).

F. Minor Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12).

G. Major Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of all other development projects (CMC Chapter 19.12).

H. Minor Modification: An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (CMC Chapter 19.164).

I. Exceptions: An exception to the zoning standards for which an exception process and findings are identified in the Municipal Code. These include Fence, Sign, Height, Hillside, Parking, R-1, A, A-1, and R1 cluster zone exceptions. This also includes exceptions identified in the City's Specific Plans (CMC Chapter 19.12 and Title 20).

J. Project Review Meeting: Request for a one hour meeting by an applicant to review a project with City staff without any written feedback.

K. Preliminary Review: One round of informal review of any proposed project with written feedback from City staff.

L. Temporary Sign Permit: A review of a temporary sign application for banners, A-frame signs and other temporary signs (CMC Chapter 19.104).

M. Sign Permit: For signs that require a public meeting such as freeway oriented signage, electronic readerboard signs etc. (CMC Chapter 19.104)
233
CC 05-06-2025
233 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description1 Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Planning Staff Hourly Rate2 Per Hour $318
General Plan
Authorization Deposit Staff Hourly Rate
Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate
Zoning
Zoning Map Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate
Zoning Text Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate
Single-Story Overlay District Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Study Session Deposit Staff Hourly Rate
Subdivision
Parcel Map (See Definition A) Each $30,047
Tentative Map (See Definition B) Each $51,639
Conditional Use/Development Permit
Temporary Use Permit Each $5,573
Administrative Conditional Use Permit Each $11,761
Minor (See Definition C) Each $28,250
Major (See Definition D) Each $43,109
Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Minor (See Definition C) Each $12,744
Major (See Definition D) Each $27,500
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Minor Duplex / Residential (See Definition E) Each $11,728 Minor (See Definition F) Each $18,299
Major (See Definition G) Each $27,917
Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Minor Residential Permit Each $4,414
Two-Story Permit without Design Review Each $5,523
Two-Story Permit with Design Review Each $6,745
Director Minor Modification (See Definition H) Each $6,030 Ministerial Residential Permit
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit Each $4,992
Exceptions (See Definition I)
Fence Exception - R1 & R2 Each $5,126
Fence Exception - Other Each $5,686
Sign Exception Each $7,657
R-1 Exception Each $8,579
Heart of the City Exception Each $27,560
Hillside Exception Each $26,287
Q. Special Events Permit: A request to host a special event for no more than a total of 12 calendar days in a year including, but not limited to, employee holiday party, summer barbeque, any outdoor event where normal operations occur indoors, car sales/show event, events located in parking lots where such uses are not authorized ordinarily. Large events involve an entire shopping center, office or industrial buildings/sites, and other commercial sites. Small events typically involve individual businesses/tenants in a shopping center or building. Staff reserves the right to determine the applicable event type based on the project description provided. Churches/non-profits operating on property in their control are exempt from fees.

R. Housing Mitigation Fee: A fee assessed in accordance with the City's General Plan Housing Element, Municipal Code (CMC 19.172) and the City's BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.

Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria. 234
CC 05-06-2025
234 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Exception - Other Each $8,711
Variance Each $9,961
Reasonable Accommodation Each $1,978
Project Review Meeting (See Definition J) Per Review $2,747 Preliminary Application Review (See Definition K)
Single Family Per Review $2,780
Non-Residential (Retail/Industrial/Office/Hotel)
<10,000 sf Per Review $6,023
>10,000 sf Per Review $10,475
Residential / Mixed Use:

Duplex Per Review $2,184
3-6 Units Per Review $9,627
6-50 Units Per Review $14,862
>50 Units Per Review $21,451
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $465
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $183
Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $851
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $274
Retroactive Tree Removal Per Tree $6,055
Heritage Tree Designation Each $463
Tree Management Plan Each $8,721
Signs
Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition L) Each $607
Sign Permit (See Definition M) Each $8,262
Sign Program Each $4,888
Planning Commission Interpretation Each $8,834
Extension of Approved Entitlements (See Definition N) Each $2,307 Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee) Each $440 Appeals (See Definition O)
Planning Commission Each $554
City Council Each $554
Miscellaneous Fees
Legal Noticing Fee (See Definition P) Each $578
Mercury News Ad Actual Cost + Admin Fee
Zoning Verification Letter Each $639
Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License) Each $319 Short-Term Rental Each $449
Mobile Vending Registration Fee Each $601
Special Events (See Definition Q)
Large Event Each $5,359
Small Event Each $500
Planning Inspection Per Inspection $472
Technology Fee Per Permit 5.80%
235
CC 05-06-2025
235 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee
Fees Assessed with Building Permits
Wireless Master Plan Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) Equipment Mounted on Existing Light/Utility Pole Each $11.28 New Personal Wireless Facility (not mounted on light/utility pole) Each $2,458 Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) All Non-Residential and Multi-Family Per s.f. $1.67
Residential Single Family Per s.f. $1.67
General Plan Office Allocation Fee Per s.f. $1.67
Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)
Each 20% of Plan Check and Inspection
fees
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 2
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees 2 (See Definition R)
Residential - Ownership
Detached Single Family Residence Per s.f. $22.45
Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome Per s.f. $24.70 Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.94
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.94
Residential - Rental
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $29.94
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $37.42
Non-Residential
Office, Research and Development, or Industrial Per s.f. $35.48 Hotel Per s.f. $17.74
Self-storage, employee unit provided Per s.f. $0.66
Self-storage, employee unit not provided Per s.f. $1.40 Warehouse Per s.f. $49.29
Commercial/Retail Per s.f. $14.97
3All Housing Mitigation Fees are assessed in accordance with the BMR Housing Mitigation Manual. Non-residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 and the 2020 Supplement to the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis by Keyser Marsten. Residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 Nexus Study. These fees increase automatically annually (on July 1 of each year) by the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers for San Francisco, CA.

An administrative fee (15%) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services/outside services (ads etc.) per Schedule A - General Fees.

If plans are submitted on paper, these must be sent to an outside agency for scanning. The cost of scanning the plans, plus the administrative fee per Schedule A - General Fees will be charged.
1 All application fees except those projects subject to the Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee (see note 2) allow for two rounds of review. Any submissions beyond two shall be subject to a fee equal to 50% of the total permit fees paid initially. 2 Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project. The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project. The applicant will be required to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City for such projects. 236
CC 05-06-2025
236 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees

PROPOSED
Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
A Assembly 250 $128 $4,565 $4,297 $121.73 $127.39
1,250 $256 $5,782 $5,443 $121.73 $137.51
2,500 $256 $7,304 $7,162 $97.38 $5.12
5,000 $384 $9,738 $7,162 $24.35 $38.20
12,500 $384 $11,564 $10,027 $21.91 $33.11
25,000 $512 $14,303 $14,037 $57.21 $58.20
A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $256 $3,652 $4,297 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,729 $48.69 $80.21
5,000 $512 $5,782 $7,735 $42.60 $5.12
10,000 $768 $7,912 $7,735 $8.12 $21.01
25,000 $768 $9,129 $10,886 $8.52 $18.21
50,000 $1,024 $11,260 $15,183 $22.52 $32.41
B Business 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $56.53
5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $42.60 $51.57
10,000 $512 $9,434 $10,886 $33.47 $28.34
20,000 $768 $12,781 $13,464 $7.10 $6.68
50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $7.30 $12.54
100,000 $1,024 $18,563 $21,486 $18.56 $22.51
B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $101.44 $130.03 1,500 $256 $5,782 $4,870 $101.44 $76.39
3,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $91.29 $4.27
6,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $16.91 $28.65
15,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $18.26 $21.86
30,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $47.68 $40.86
E Educational 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48
500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77
1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,302 $273.88 $12.80
2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94
5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,881 $54.78 $71.31
10,000 $512 $14,303 $12,318 $143.03 $128.30
E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,347 $3,438 $228.23 $246.86 500 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $243.45 $286.47
1,000 $256 $5,478 $5,729 $182.59 $12.80
2,000 $384 $7,304 $5,729 $40.58 $76.39
5,000 $384 $8,521 $8,021 $42.60 $65.58
10,000 $512 $10,651 $11,172 $106.51 $116.85
F Factory Industrial 1,000 $256 $6,391 $6,589 $22.82 $49.37 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $36.52 $51.57
10,000 $512 $9,129 $10,886 $39.56 $28.34
20,000 $768 $13,085 $13,464 $6.09 $6.68
50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $3.65 $12.54
100,000 $1,024 $16,737 $21,486 $16.74 $22.51
F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $256 $5,173 $5,157 $30.43 $49.37 5,000 $512 $6,391 $6,875 $36.52 $45.84
10,000 $512 $8,216 $9,167 $30.43 $2.56
20,000 $768 $11,260 $9,167 $6.09 $12.41
50,000 $768 $13,085 $12,891 $6.09 $10.83
100,000 $1,024 $16,129 $18,048 $16.13 $19.07
H High Hazard 100 $128 $6,391 $4,584 $380.39 $390.10
500 $256 $7,912 $6,016 $486.90 $343.77
1,000 $256 $10,347 $7,735 $365.18 $12.80
2,000 $384 $13,998 $7,735 $81.15 $105.04
5,000 $384 $16,433 $10,886 $79.12 $88.50
10,000 $512 $20,389 $15,183 $203.89 $156.95
H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,652 $3,438 $228.23 $318.48 500 $256 $4,565 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77
1,000 $256 $6,086 $6,302 $213.02 $12.80
2,000 $384 $8,216 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94
5,000 $384 $9,738 $8,881 $42.60 $71.31
10,000 $512 $11,868 $12,318 $118.68 $128.30
I Institutional 500 $256 $7,304 $4,870 $91.29 $98.74
2,500 $512 $9,129 $6,589 $109.55 $80.21
5,000 $512 $11,868 $8,594 $85.21 $5.12
10,000 $768 $16,129 $8,594 $18.26 $24.83
25,000 $768 $18,867 $12,318 $18.26 $19.36
50,000 $1,024 $23,432 $16,902 $46.86 $35.85
I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $286.47
1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $273.88 $12.80
2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $50.72 $85.94
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
237
CC 05-06-2025
237 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees

PROPOSED
Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $54.78 $65.58
10,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $143.03 $122.57
M Mercantile 2,000 $384 $8,521 $7,162 $30.43 $29.87
10,000 $768 $10,955 $9,167 $30.43 $31.51
20,000 $768 $13,998 $12,318 $24.35 $1.92
40,000 $1,152 $18,867 $12,318 $5.58 $8.59
100,000 $1,152 $22,215 $17,475 $5.48 $7.26
200,000 $1,536 $27,692 $24,350 $13.85 $12.94
M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $76.08 $140.70 1,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $101.44 $114.59
3,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $71.01 $8.53
6,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $16.91 $35.01
15,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $14.20 $26.53
30,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $39.56 $50.20
R-1 Residential—Hotels & Motels 3,000 $384 $10,042 $8,308 $22.82 $24.69 15,000 $768 $12,781 $10,886 $24.35 $22.92
30,000 $768 $16,433 $14,324 $19.27 $1.28
60,000 $1,152 $22,215 $14,324 $4.06 $6.68
150,000 $1,152 $25,867 $20,340 $4.26 $5.60
300,000 $1,536 $32,257 $28,361 $10.75 $9.97
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $7,912 $6,589 $66.57 $70.67 4,000 $512 $10,042 $8,594 $76.08 $64.46
8,000 $512 $13,085 $11,172 $57.06 $3.20
16,000 $768 $17,650 $11,172 $12.68 $19.10
40,000 $768 $20,693 $15,756 $12.93 $16.40
80,000 $1,024 $25,867 $22,059 $32.33 $28.85
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $304 $6,589 $0.00 $70.67 - Repeat Unit 4,000 $512 $304 $8,594 $0.00 $64.46
8,000 $512 $304 $11,172 $0.00 $3.20
16,000 $768 $304 $11,172 $1.27 $19.10
40,000 $768 $609 $15,756 $0.00 $16.40
80,000 $1,024 $609 $22,059 $0.76 $28.85
R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes, Models, 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,875 $20.29 $57.29 First Master Plan 2,500 $256 $6,086 $7,735 $81.15 $57.29 4,000 $256 $7,304 $8,594 $15.22 $84.42
6,000 $512 $7,608 $10,027 $60.86 $28.65
8,000 $512 $8,825 $10,600 $15.22 $84.42
10,000 $768 $9,129 $12,032 $91.29 $128.00
R-3 Dwellings—Production Phase 1,000 $128 $609 $4,870 $0.00 $123.12 of Master Plan (Repeats) 2,500 $256 $609 $6,589 $20.29 $133.69 4,000 $256 $913 $8,594 $15.22 $12.80
6,000 $512 $1,217 $8,594 $15.22 $186.21
8,000 $512 $1,522 $12,318 $15.22 $241.98
10,000 $768 $1,826 $16,902 $18.26 $176.70
R-3 Group Care 1,000 $256 $6,695 $6,589 $45.65 $63.70
5,000 $512 $8,521 $8,881 $48.69 $51.57
10,000 $512 $10,955 $11,459 $39.56 $2.56
20,000 $768 $14,911 $11,459 $8.12 $16.23
50,000 $768 $17,346 $16,329 $8.52 $13.12
100,000 $1,024 $21,606 $22,631 $21.61 $23.66
R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 80 $256 $2,739 $3,724 $190.20 $358.09 400 $256 $3,347 $4,870 $228.23 $358.09
800 $256 $4,260 $6,302 $190.20 $32.00
1,600 $512 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $119.36
4,000 $512 $6,695 $9,167 $45.65 $85.18
8,000 $768 $8,521 $12,318 $106.51 $163.58
S Storage 600 $256 $5,173 $4,584 $63.40 $70.35
3,000 $512 $6,695 $6,016 $60.86 $66.84
6,000 $512 $8,521 $8,021 $50.72 $4.27
12,000 $768 $11,564 $8,021 $10.14 $19.10
30,000 $768 $13,390 $11,459 $11.16 $15.18
60,000 $1,024 $16,737 $15,756 $27.90 $27.97
S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 600 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $50.72 $70.35 3,000 $512 $5,478 $5,729 $50.72 $66.84
6,000 $512 $6,999 $7,735 $40.58 $4.27
12,000 $768 $9,434 $7,735 $8.45 $17.51
30,000 $768 $10,955 $10,886 $9.13 $15.18
60,000 $1,024 $13,694 $15,183 $22.82 $27.01
U Accessory 40
200
238
CC 05-06-2025
238 of 554
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees

PROPOSED
Related IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost
Plan Check
Cost
Inspection
Cost
Plan Check
Cost Inspection Cost
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
400
800
1,000 $256 $2,435 $4,011 $30.43 $184.69
2,000 $384 $2,739 $5,729 $45.65 $120.99
4,000 $512 $3,652 $8,021 $91.29 $213.33
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,043 $4,297 $30.43 $84.42 w/o Podium 2,500 $512 $3,652 $5,729 $48.69 $68.75
5,000 $512 $4,869 $7,448 $36.52 $5.12
10,000 $768 $6,695 $7,448 $6.09 $21.01
25,000 $768 $7,608 $10,600 $7.30 $17.07
50,000 $1,024 $9,434 $14,610 $18.87 $31.27
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,347 $4,584 $45.65 $84.42 with Podium 2,500 $512 $4,260 $6,016 $48.69 $80.21
5,000 $512 $5,478 $8,021 $36.52 $5.12
10,000 $768 $7,304 $8,021 $8.12 $22.92
25,000 $768 $8,521 $11,459 $8.52 $18.21
50,000 $1,024 $10,651 $15,756 $21.30 $33.56
All Shell Buildings 500 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $60.86 $68.75
5,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $42.60 $5.12
10,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $10.14 $21.01
25,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $8.52 $15.92
50,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $23.74 $30.12
1 At Building Permit submittal, a Planning Division Review fee of 20% shall be collected (see Table 3 - Misc. Items) 2 Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. 239
CC 05-06-2025
239 of 554
FEE DESCRIPTION Unit
FY 2025-26
Prop. Fee

MECHANICAL FEES
Mechanical Permit Fee Each $292
Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) Each $292 Other Mechanical Inspections (hourly rate) Each $292
MECHANICAL UNIT FEES:

Install or relocate HVAC system or portion there of
Residential Each $286
Commercial Each $430
Hood installation that is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood
Residential Each $144
Commercial Each $573
Any other piece of equipment or appliance not listed in Mechanical schedule. Each $286 Electrical Permit Fee Each $292
Electrical Plan Check Each $292
Electrical Inspections Each $292
ELECTRICAL UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Rewire (up to 2500 sq ft) Each $573 Each Additional 1000 sq ft Each 1,000 sf $286
Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters
First 20 First 20 $95
Each Additional Each $10

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees

ELECTRICAL FEES
240
CC 05-06-2025
240 of 554
FEE DESCRIPTION Unit
FY 2025-26
Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp-holding devices First 20 First 20 $144
Each Additional Each $10
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures Each $33
Appliances (Install / Repair / Replace)
Residential Each $48
Commercial Each $94
Power Apparatus - Generator/Transformer or Similar (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential Each $286
Commercial Each $430
Services (including Temporary Power)
600 volts or less, up to 200 amperes in rating Each $95 600 volts or less, 201 to 1000 amperes in rating Each $286 Over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating Each $430 Any other Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors not listed in Electrical Schedule.

Each $286

PLUMBING/GAS FEES
Plumbing/Gas Permit Fee Each $292
Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check Each $292
Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections Each $292
PLUMBING/GAS UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Re-Plumbing (up to 2500 sq ft) Each $573 Each Additional 1000 sq ft Each 1,000 sf $286
Building sewer lateral (Install / Repair / Replace)
Residential Each $71
Commercial Each $144
Sewer Clean-out (Install/Repair/Replace)
Residential Each $71
Commercial Each $144
Building Drain/Waste/Vent Repair
Residential Each $20
Commercial Each $29
241
CC 05-06-2025
241 of 554
FEE DESCRIPTION Unit
FY 2025-26
Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees Water Heater Replacement / Installation - All Types
Residential Each $71
Commercial Each $215
Interceptors - Grease/Sand (Install/Repair/Replace) Each $215 Water Treatment System (Install/Repair/Replace) Each $95 Gas piping (Install/Repair/Replace) Each 4 $144
Install or Replace Water Meter / Service Each $71
Partial Water Re-pipe
Residential Per fixture $29
Commercial Per fixture $19
Any other device/fixture not listed in Plumbing Schedule (Install/Repair/Replace) Each $144 242
CC 05-06-2025
242 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee
Standard Hourly Rate - Building Per hour $292
Accessibility Hardship Exemption Each $304
Acoustical Review
Single Family Home/Duplex—New Each $718
Single Family Home/Duplex—Addition/Alteration Each $423 Multi-Family/Commercial Each $718
Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) Each $2,029
Plan Check Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) Each $3,879
Plan Check Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $4,343
Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) Each $2,789
Inspection Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) Each $3,665
Inspection Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $4,581
Accessory Buildings - Residential
Accessory Buildings (Up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $1,882
Accessory Buildings (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $2,760
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Plan Check Fees
Plan Check Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,691
Plan Check Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $3,908
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Inspection Fees
Inspection Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $2,865
Inspection Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $4,010
Address Assignment Per hour $256
Board of Appeals Per hour $292
Clerical Fee 1/2 hour $128
Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Per hour $280 Antenna—Telecom Facility
Radio Each $502
Cellular/Mobile Phone, alterations to existing facility Each $718 Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing Each $2,491
Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building Each $1,310 Arbor/Trellis Each $718
Awning/Canopy (supported by building) Each $718
Balcony Addition Each $1,742
Battery Energy Storage System up to three (3) $718
Each Additional Each $423

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
243
CC 05-06-2025
243 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Below Market Rate
Escrow Inspection % of Sale Price 0.52%
Carport Each $1,005
Certifications
Special Inspector Qualifications (initial review) Each $561 Special Inspector Qualifications (renewal / update) Each $256 Chimney (new) Each $1,005
Chimney Repair Each $567
Commercial Coach (per unit) Each $1,310
Covered Porch Each $1,005
Deck (wood) Each $1,005
Deck Railing Each $567
Deferred Submittal (2 hour minimum) Each $292
Demolition
Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Base $847
Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $295 Residential (R-3 Occ) (up to 3,000 sf) Base $847
Residential (R-3 Occ) (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $295 Swimming Pool Residential Each $567
Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Base $853 Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $286 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection Per hour $292
Door
New door (non structural) Each $423
New door (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $718
Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Each $128
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Each $292
Extensions
Plan Check Applications (within 180 days of Submittal) 1 hour $292 Permits (within 180 days of Issuance)
Start construction, without plans 1/2 hour $152
Resume or complete construction, without plans 1/2 hour $152 Start construction, with plans 1 hour $304
Resume or complete construction, with plans 2 hours $609 Fence
Non-masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f. $567
Non-masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $144 Masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f. $1,005
Masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $573
244
CC 05-06-2025
244 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Fireplace
Masonry each $1,005
Pre-Fabricated/Metal each $567
Flag pole (over 20 feet in height) each $567
Foundation Repair each $1,292
Inspections
Pre-Inspection Fee Per hour $292
Standard Inspection Hourly Rate Per hour $292
Progress Inspection Per hour $292
Partial Inspection Per hour $292
Courtesy Inspection - 2 hour minimum Per hour $292
Cancelled inspection w/out advance notice Per hour $292 Reinspection Per hour $292
Outside of normal business hours (2 hour minimum) Per hour $338 Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $144
Each Additional hour Per hour $286
Lighting pole Each $718
each additional pole Each $295
Modular Structures Each $1,023
Modification of Technical Code 1 hour $292
Occupancy
Certificate of Occupancy/Completion Each $567
Temporary Occupancy Permit Per six months $567
Partition—Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) Up to 30 l.f. $862 Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $286
Partition—Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) Up to 30 l.f. $567 Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $286
Patio Cover / Gazebo
Wood frame Up to 300 sf $1,023
Metal frame Up to 300 sf $1,023
Other frame Up to 300 sf $1,023
Additional patio Each 300 sf $439
Enclosed prefabricated Sun Room Up to 300 sf $1,005
245
CC 05-06-2025
245 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Photovoltaic System
Residential
Systems up to 15kW Each $450
Each Additional kW Above 15kW Each Addl kW $15
Multi-Family and Commercial:

Systems up to 50kW up to 8 kW Each $1,000
Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt Each 1 addl kW $7 Each Additional kW Above 250kW Each addl kW $5
Thermal System
Residential:

Systems up to 10kW Each $450
Each Additional kW Above 10kW Each addl kW $15
Multi-Family and Commercial:

Systems up to 30kW Each $1,000
Each Additional kW between 30kW and 260kW Each addl kW $7 Each Additional kW Above 260kW Each addl kW $5
Pile Foundation
Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles) Up to 10 $1,310 Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $878
Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete) Up to 10 $1,310
Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $878
Product Review Per hour $280
Plan Review
Standard Plan Review Hourly Rate Per hour $304
Overtime Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per hour $356
Pre-Submittal Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per hour $304 Expedited Plan Review Each 1.5x Plan Check Fee
Plan Review Supplemental Fee (after 2nd review)
First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $305
Pre-Construction Meeting Each $494
Remodel—Residential
Kitchen (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $1,140
Bath (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $1,140
Other Remodel (up to 300 sq. ft.) Each $1,005
Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 300) Per s.f. $2.51 Other Remodel (1000 sq. ft.) Each $2,760
Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 1000) Per s.f. $0.58 Other Remodel (2500+ sq. ft.) Each $3,637
Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 2500) Per s.f. $0.29 246
CC 05-06-2025
246 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Re-roof
Residential (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $27 Multi-Family Dwelling (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $27 Commercial
Commercial (first 5,000 sf) Each $701
Commercial (each additional 2,500 sf) Each 2,500 sf $286 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry)
Standard (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,310
Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $878
Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,901 Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $1,164
Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $2,187 Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $1,450
Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $1,901 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $1,164
Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) Up to 50 l.f. $2,187 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $1,450
Revisions $292
Sauna—steam Each $1,005
Siding
Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior) Up to 400 sf $701 All Other Up to 400 sf $557
Additional siding Each 400 sf $144
Signs
Directional Each $567
Each additional Directional Sign Each $295
Ground/Roof/Projecting Signs Each $567
Master Plan Sign Check Each $567
Rework of any existing Ground Sign Each $567
Other Sign Each $567
Reinspection Fee Each $136
Wall/Awning Sign, Non-Electric Each $423
Wall/Awning Sign, Electric Each $567
Skylight
50 sf or less (cumulative area) Each $567
Greater than 50 sf or structural Each $295
Stairs—First Flight First flight $567
Each additional flight Per flight $295
247
CC 05-06-2025
247 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f. $718
each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $144
over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f. $862
each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $144
Stucco Applications
Base Up to 400 sf $557
Additional Stucco Application Each 400 sf $144
Swimming Pool/Spa
Vinyl-lined Each $1,310
Fiberglass Each $1,310
Gunite (up to 800 sf) Each $1,882
Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $439
Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) Each $3,192
Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $878
Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated) Each $567
Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8%
Temporary Structures Each $862
Tenant Improvement Preparation Each $567
Window or Sliding Glass Door
Replacement (first 8 windows) First 8 $415
Replacement (each additional 8 windows) Each 8 $144
New Window (non structural) Each $355
New window (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $502
Bay Window (structural) Each $502
Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)
Each
20% of plan review and
inspection fees
Planning Hourly Rate (Misc Reviews) Per hour Refer to Schedule C Housing Mitigation In-lieu fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Per sq. ft. Refer to Schedule C Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Per sq. ft. Refer to Schedule C Wireless Master Plan fee (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Each Refer to Schedule C Refunds - Plan Check Fees
1st review not started (within 3 Business of Submittal) 100% of Plan Review Fees Plan review more than 3 Business Days after the Date of Submittal No refund 248
CC 05-06-2025
248 of 554
Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective July 6, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Refunds - Building Permit Fees
No inspections and permit is active (not expired) 80% of permit fees No inspections and permit is expired No refund
Inspections were provided No refund
Work without permit - based on current permit and plan check fees Double fees NOTE:

Fees identified in this Table consist of 50% Plan Review Fee and 50% Inspection Fee Fee Adjustments: In instances where the strict application of fees from this schedule would constitute a substantial inequity to an applicant or to the City, the Chief Building Official shall be authorized to adjust such fees on a case-by-case basis. Any such adjustments shall be recorded in writing and entered into the appropriate files. 249
CC 05-06-2025
249 of 554
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING

PREVIOUS FEE SCHEDULES
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to exceed the cost of delivering said services; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and WHEREAS, in 2023 the City conducted a Cost of Service (User Fee) Study and conducts annual updates pursuant to economic factors discussed in the staff report for this item to ensure that the fees charged do not exceed the cost of delivering the services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby:

1. Amend the user fees per attached Schedules A, B, C, and D to this resolution effective July 6, 2025.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6
th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
250
CC 05-06-2025
250 of 554
RESOLUTION NO. 24-041

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING

USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council has identified a need to adopt a policy governing general guidelines for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive user fee schedule to ensure the City adequately recovers costs for the provision of services, benefits, or privileges ( Services) in an efficient, legal, and accountable manner; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, the City Council considered proposed policy at a duly noticed special meeting of the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. The City Council hereby adopts the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Policy shall be effective on July 14, 2024.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 14th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, Moore, Wei
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:

Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date
6/3/24
6/3/24
251
CC 05-06-2025
251 of 554

USER FEE COST

RECOVERY POLICY
Citywide Policy Manual
Attachments: N/ A
Effective Date:

July 14, 2024 per Resolution 24-041
Responsible Department:

Administrative Services
Related Policies & Notes:

Purpose
To provide general guidelines for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive user fee schedule to ensure the City adequately recovers costs for the provision of services, benefits, or privileges (Services) in an efficient, legal, and accountable manner.

Background
The City conducts comprehensive Cost Allocation Plans (CAP) and Fee Studies on a seven-year cycle to assess the alignment of current fees with the actual cost of providing each service. CAP establishes a data- driven methodology for distributing administrative and overhead charges to programs and services, while a Fee Study determines the full cost of services for which fees are charged. The most recent study, presented during the February 6,2024, City Council Meeting, recommended the adoption of a formal cost recovery policy across all service sectors, including General, Engineering, Building, Planning, and Parks and Recreation. The CAP and Fee Study guided the crafting of the policy by City staff, aligning closely with Council directives and recommendations.

Between CAP and fee studies, the City adjusts fee schedules annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI), or changes in budgeted labor costs. These adjustments require annual review and approval by the City Council to ensure fees accurately reflect current service costs, accommodate new City services, and eliminate fees for discontinued services.

Policy
The policy has three main components:

Provision for ongoing review
Process of establishing cost recovery levels
o Factors to be Considered
Target Cost Recovery Levels
o General ranges
o Target cost recovery by service area
Attachment A
252
CC 05-06-2025
252 of 554
Provision for ongoing review
Fees will undergo annual reviews to ensure they remain aligned with changes in the cost of living and evolving methods or levels of service delivery. To facilitate an evidence-based approach to this review process, the City will conduct a CAP and Fee Study every seven years. During the interim periods, fee adjustments will be made based on annual cost factors, such as the Consumer Price Index ( CPI), the Bay Area Construction Cost Index ( CCI), or changes in budgeted labor costs.

Furthermore, should a significant fee increase be warranted after the completion of the study, the fee structure may be phased in over a period of 2-3 years to reach the desired cost recovery rate.

This proactive approach ensures that our fee structures remain fair, transparent, and reflective of current economic conditions and service standards.

Process of establishing user fee cost recovery levels
The following factors will be considered when setting service fees and cost recovery levels:

1. Community-wide vs. private benefit
a. The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for community- wide services while user fees are appropriate for services that are of private benefit to individuals or groups. Full cost recovery is not always appropriate.

2. Service recipient vs. service driver
a. Particularly for services associated with regulated activities ( development review, code enforcement), from which the community eventually benefits, cost recovery from the "driver" of the need for the service ( applicant, violator) is appropriate.

3. Consistency with City public policies and objectives a. City policies and Council goals focused on long-term improvements to community quality of life may also impact desired fee levels, as fees can be used to change community behaviors, promote certain activities, or provide funding for the pursuit of specific community goals, for example, health and safety, environmental stewardship.

4. Impact on demand ( elasticity)
a. Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full cost recovery, for example, the City is providing services for which there is a genuine market not over-stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high- cost recovery may negatively impact lower-income groups, and this can work against public policy outcomes, especially if the services are specifically designed to serve particular groups.

5. Discounted Rates and Surcharges
a. Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents. b. Higher rates are considered appropriate for non-residents to further reduce general fund subsidization of services.

Attachment A
253
CC 05-06-2025
253 of 554

6. Feasibility of Collection
a. It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to appropriately identify and charge each user for the specific services received. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection.

Target cost recovery levels

1. Low-cost recovery levels ( 0% - 30%) are appropriate if:
a. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received
b. Collecting fees is not cost-effective
c. There is no intent to limit the use of the service
d. The service is non-recurring
e. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements f. The public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service

2. Services having factors associated with both cost recovery levels would be subsidized at a mid-level of cost recovery ( 31% - 80%).

3. High- cost recovery levels ( 81% - 100%) are appropriate if:
a. The individual user or participant receives the benefit of the service b. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do provide the service c. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received
d. The use of the service is specifically discouraged
e. The service is regulatory in nature
Schedule/ Service Area Target Cost Recovery Range
Schedule A – General 100%
Schedule B – Engineering ( PW) 75-100%
Schedule C – Building 80-100%
Schedule D – Planning 50-80%
Schedule E – Recreation* Market- driven
Parks and Recreation Fees exclusion – fees will be administratively updated per Resolutions No. 04- 350, authorizing the City Manager to set all recreation fees.

Revisions:

Attachment A
254
CC 05-06-2025
254 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13883 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
Agenda #: 11.

Subject: Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts.

Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/30/2025
powered by Legistar™255
CC 05-06-2025
255 of 554

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 6, 2025
Subject
Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts.

Recommended Action
Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

Background
As part of the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Financial Report on March 4, 2024. City staff informed City Council of vacancy reporting requirements ahead of budget adoption. Assembly Bill ("AB") 2561, codified in Government Code section 3502.3, passed in 2024, and requires public agencies to hold a public hearing to address the status of job vacancies prior to the adoption of the upcoming final budget. During this public hearing, the City must present information on the status of vacancies and the City's recruitment and retention efforts. If necessary, the City will identify necessary changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. This public hearing will ensure compliance with the new law.

Reasons for Recommendation
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2561, passed in 2024, requires public agencies to hold a public hearing to address the status of job vacancies prior to the adoption of the upcoming final budget. Staff will present the following required information at the public hearing:

1. The status of vacancies at the City of Cupertino.

2. Information on the City of Cupertino’s recruitment and retention efforts.

3. Obstacles in the City of Cupertino's policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may create challenges in the hiring process.
256
CC 05-06-2025
256 of 554
Based on the findings, staff recommends that Council receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

As of April 14, 2025, there are no bargaining units with a vacancy rate exceeding 20%. If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the staff presentation will also include the following information:

1. The total number of job vacancies within the bargaining unit.

2. The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit.

3. The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted.

4. Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Vanessa Guerra, Human Resources Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Bargaining Unit Total
Positions
Vacant
Positions
Vacancy
Rate As of
4/14/2025
Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA)/IFPTE
Local 21
72 8 11.1%
Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO
(OE3)
52 5 9.6%
Unrepresented Management/Appointed Employees 78 8 10.3% TOTAL (Does not include 5 Council positions) 202 21 10.4% 257
CC 05-06-2025
257 of 554
Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Assembly Bill 2561
258
CC 05-06-2025
258 of 554
Assembly Bill No. 2561
CHAPTER 409
An act to add Section 3502.3 to the Government Code, relating to public employment. [ Approved by Governor September 22, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 22, 2024. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2561, McKinnor. Local public employees: vacant positions.

Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (act), authorizes local public employees, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on matters of labor relations. The act requires the governing body of a public agency to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations and to consider fully presentations that are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members before arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.

This bill would, as specified, require a public agency to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once per fiscal year, and would entitle the recognized employee organization to present at the hearing. If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the bill would require the public agency, upon request of the recognized employee organization, to include specified information during the public hearing. By imposing new duties on local public agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also include related legislative findings.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that a local agency or school district may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.

Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes Bill Text
4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 1/3 259 CC 05-06-2025
259 of 554

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) Job vacancies in local government are a widespread and significant problem for the public sector affecting occupations across wage levels and educational requirements. (b) High job vacancies impact public service delivery and the workers who are forced to handle heavier workloads, with understaffing leading to burnout and increased turnover that further exacerbate staffing challenges.
(c) There is a statewide interest in ensuring that public agency operations are appropriately staffed and that high vacancy rates do not undermine public employee labor relations.

SEC. 2. Section 3502.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
3502.3. (a) (1) A public agency shall present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing before the governing board at least once per fiscal year. (2) If the governing board will be adopting an annual or multiyear budget during the fiscal year, the presentation shall be made prior to the adoption of the final budget. (3) During the hearing, the public agency shall identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. (b) The recognized employee organization for a bargaining unit shall be entitled to make a presentation at the public hearing at which the public agency presents the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts for positions within that bargaining unit.
(c) If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20 percent of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the public agency shall, upon request of the recognized employee organization, include all of the following information during the public hearing:
(1) The total number of job vacancies within the bargaining unit. (2) The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit. (3) The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted. (4) Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions. (d) This section shall not prevent the governing board from holding additional public hearings about vacancies. (e) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(f) For purposes of this section, “recognized employee organization” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 3501.
4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 2/3 260 CC 05-06-2025
260 of 554
SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Section 3502.3 to the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

It is in the public interest, and it furthers the purposes of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section (3) of Article I of the California Constitution, to ensure that information concerning public agency employment is available to the public.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act. It is recognized, however, that a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement available to it under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) and any other law.
4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 3/3 261 CC 05-06-2025
261 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13905 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
Agenda #: 12.

Subject: Review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (Continued from April 15, 2025)

1. Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17

2. Provide direction for item 15
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/30/2025
powered by Legistar™262
CC 05-06-2025
262 of 554
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 6, 2025
Subject
Review of Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers Recommended Action

1. Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17

2. Provide direction for item 15
Reasons for Recommendation and Options
As required per the Council’s adopted Procedures Manual, the City Manager provides a quarterly report to Council regarding the status of future agenda items. These are items that at least two Councilmembers have requested to be added to a future City Council agenda.

Background
On February 4, staff presented a list of 16 items for Council consideration. Council voted on the next steps for each item (described in Attachment A) and removed three items from the list. Since then, Council has added additional items to the future agenda items list for consideration.

At the April 15 council meeting, Council provided direction via a unanimous vote to agendize item 18 (Finch Property) as soon as possible to consider the Finch property for potential purchase or other form of partnership with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). Council also voted to continue the TBD discussion to the next meeting.

The updated TBD list is included as Attachment B with staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17. Staff is seeking Council direction for item 15. A majority vote of the City Council can either agendize an item for discussion at a future date or remove an item from the list, as outlined in the Council Procedures Manual.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
263
CC 05-06-2025
263 of 554
2 Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.

City Work Program Item/Description
No/N/A
Council Goal
N/A
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B – Future Agenda Items List as of May 2025
C – Supplemental Report from April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting 264
CC 05-06-2025
264 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
1 Draft a policy regarding disclosure to the
public of remodeling costs of buildings the
Council is considering purchase of in open
session. This policy would ensure that the
public will not be surprised to find a
negotiated arrangement to provide a
Council-designated property negotiator
more than the delegation of authority to
negotiate the cost of the property (meaning
Council shall not negotiate remodeling costs
or process of determining remodeling
amounts in closed session).

Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
6/28/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
2 Report to Council a cost comparison of
leasing vs. buying office property in
Cupertino for a lease length of time of 2
years (in the event that plans for remodel
and retrofit are drawn up and executed,
staff leases an unremodeled building for 2
years and returns) or 7 years (in the event
that a purchased office building requires
$5M in remodel costs which takes one year
to complete, and City Hall relocates to it for
6 years, sells the building in a flat office
market and returns). Both of these scenarios
would assume City Hall is remodeled at
$27M.

Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
6/28/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
3 Action Item/Study Session with
information/proposal on the need for an
interim city hall for 6-7 years, rather than
Requestor:

Chao
7/1/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
265
CC 05-06-2025
265 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
one year during the renovation/construction
of the current city hall and any update on
the private-public partnership that led to
such proposal.

Seconder:

Moore

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
4 Discuss and give direction on the "wisdom
of purchase" versus leasing of any property
as an interim city hall, based on prior
council motions for city hall
renovation/rebuild, to include the duration
of the use of the interim city hall, an
estimate of leasing/purchasing prices and
estimated remodeling/earthquake retrofit
costs in general terms as permitted in an
open session before any offer is made on
any property. The agenda item on June 18
Council meeting to authorize the city
managers as a negotiator, only listed the
property address, but not the "wisdom of
the purchase".

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
7/9/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
5 Consider a policy to provide access to
documents made available for closed
sessions ahead of time with proper security
measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers
can read the materials before and after a
closed session.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 7/16/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item.

Materials are confidential
and should be based on
the sensitivity of the
information and the
nature of the agenda item.

Keep on list until added
to Council Procedures
Manual
266
CC 05-06-2025
266 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
6 Consider regulations on sound
amplification devices in parks
Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
Added by
email on
9/12/24 and
at the
9/17/24
Council
meeting.

Staff recommends
removing this item. Sound
amplification is currently
allowed in parks with a
valid City permit as
specified in CMC

13.04.120 Use of Park
Property Section I.

A friendly amendment
was approved to hold a
study session on this
item. Add this item to an
agenda: Amend CMC
Section 13.04.120 Use of
Park Property “No
person in the park shall
do any of the
following:… 1. Use any
system for amplifying
sounds, whether for
speech or music or
otherwise, unless an
exclusive use permit is
first secured,” as…
“No person in a park
shall do any of the
following: … 1. Use any
system for amplifying
sounds, whether for
speech or music or
otherwise, in an
unreasonable loud
manner, unless an
exclusive use permit is
for secured,” where the
definition of
“unreasonably loud
manner” means “the
267
CC 05-06-2025
267 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
volume of sound in the
use or operation of any
sound application
equipment if such sound
can be heard by a person
from fifty (50) or more
feet from the source of
the amplification” (as
defined in Oakland
Muni Code)
7 Review the City Work Program Process Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. This
discussion was held at
12/17/24 City Council
meeting.

Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
8 Review the Cupertino City Council
Procedures Manual
Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
Keep on list to agendize
this discussion
9 Review the current list of future agenda
items requested by Councilmembers (“TBD
List”)
Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. This
item is agendized for the
1/22/25 City Council
meeting.

Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
10 Consider changing regular City Council
meetings to Wednesdays
Unanimous At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item and
keeping the current
Council schedule adopted
on 12/17/24. This will
reduce complications and
Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
268
CC 05-06-2025
268 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
scheduling conflicts with a
variety of other
organizations and City
Commissions.
11 Review the architectural standards for 5G
towers
Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. The
5G ordinance is being
considered as part of the
FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Keep on TBD until it is
added to the FY 2025-27
City Work Program.
12 Reactivate the Legislative Review
Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Add as an action item
13 Reactivate the Economic Development
Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Add as an action item
14 Restore the previous responsibilities of the
Audit Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
Add as an action item
269
CC 05-06-2025
269 of 554
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.
15 For transportation projects and added lane
reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of
the Planning Commission
Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

An action item added to
expand the
Responsibility for the
Planning Commission to
add small cell issues and
transportation issues,
such as traffic demand
management (TDM),
intersection
reconfiguration, lane
reduction, etc. (and
perhaps to rename it the
Planning and
Transportation
Commission).
16 Guidelines and Procedures regarding
Proclamations and Certificates
Chao 1/15/25
added by
email
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
A friendly amendment
was approved to
agendize this item as
appropriate.
270
CC 05-06-2025
270 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
1 An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
7/9/24
added by
email
With the City Hall item
being added to the final
list for the FY 25-27 City
Work Program, staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.
2/4/25
2 Consider a policy to provide access to documents made available for closed sessions ahead of time with proper security measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers can read the materials before and after a closed session.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 7/16/24
Council
meeting
This may be added as part
of the Council Procedure
Manual revisions. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.
3 Review the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item as this
is currently underway.
4 Review the architectural standards for 5G towers Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item as this
item was added to the
final list for the FY 25-27
City Work Program.
5 Study session to discuss the policy for the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) approval process
Requestor:

Chao
At 3/18/25
Council
Meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item as
Council discussed the
development of the FY 25-
26 CIP and five-year plan
at the April 2 Council
meeting.
271
CC 05-06-2025
271 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
6 Reactivate the Legislative Review Committee Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item as
Council created a
legislative subcommittee
at the March 18 City
Council meeting.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
7 Reactivate the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item as
Council voted to
reactivate the EDC and is
holding the second
reading on April 15.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
8 Introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25- ____ of Municipal Code Amendments regarding vehicle
parking restrictions.
“I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the
original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below.

We could consider the two options:
- Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be
moved at least one thousand (1000) feet
(approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its
current location and may not return to the same
parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after
its departure.

Requestor:

Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
This item is being
discussed on May 6, 2025.
272
CC 05-06-2025
272 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
- Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a
short distance will not be considered compliance
with this section. Additionally, successive acts of
parking shall be presumed to be a single act of
parking within the meaning of this section when the
vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding
the parking limitations prescribed by this section.

I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner.
9 Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing (MOTION: Chao moved and Moore
seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it;
include existing proposed bills on student housing and
comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in
other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.)
Requestor:

All
At 4/2/25
Council
Meeting
Staff is working on
agendizing this discussion
at the earliest available
meeting date.
4/2/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
10 An Informational Memorandum on the contracts signed by the City in the past year. Ideally, include the purpose, the department and the contract duration and the dollar
amount. If this request would need to be added to the info memo TBD list to get majority support. A monthly
report on new contract signed or renewed would be quite helpful going forward too.

Requestor:

Chao
4/4/25
added by
email
This info memo will be
published in May 2025.
273
CC 05-06-2025
273 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
11 Restore the previous responsibilities of the Audit
Committee
(Motion: An action item to restore the Audit Committee’s previous responsibilities. The motion passed with the
following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None).

Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4/25 Council moved
to agendize this item as
soon as appropriate.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
12 For transportation projects and added lane reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission
(Motion: An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and
transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission. The motion passed with the following vote:

Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan.

Abstain: None. Absent: None).

Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4/25 Council moved
to agendize this item as
soon as appropriate.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
13 A study session to consider regulations on sound
amplification devices in parks (Motion: A friendly
amendment was approved to hold a study session on this
item. Add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section

13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for
amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or
otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following: …

1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for
speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud
manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
At 9/17/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4/25 Council moved
to agendize this study
session as soon as
appropriate.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
274
CC 05-06-2025
274 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
“the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a
person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code)
14 Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates (Motion: A friendly amendment was approved to agendize this item as appropriate.)
Requestor:

Chao
1/15/25
added by
email.

Email
attached
below.

On 2/4/25 Council moved
to agendize this item as
soon as appropriate.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
15 Receive update and review the Active Transportation Plan Requestor:

Wang,
Seconder:

Chao
4/17/25
added by
email
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from this list
16 Consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD. This includes:
• Information about the Finch Property itself
• Any communication about the Finch Property from
CUSD
• The info memo on the current balance and estimated
future parkland impact fee.

Requestor:

Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
On 4/15/25 Council moved
to agendize this item as
soon as possible to
consider the Finch
property for potential
purchase or other form of
partnership with CUSD.
4/15/25
approved
by council
to agendize
17 Get some clarity on the total expenses for the sister and friendship cities. These are valuable programs for the city, but we should be cognizant of the expenses so far and
going forward (in the budget).
“Will someone please provide a cost update prior to the Sister/Friendship city Policy Agenda item, to the following Requestor:

Moore,
Seconder:

Chao
4/14/25
added by
email
An info memo will be
published on this topic.
275
CC 05-06-2025
275 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
table (below) provided in October 10, 2023 Supplemental Materials to the October 10, 2023 agenda item, to include:
• Friendship City costs (gifts, staff time?), the table only has Sister Cities.
• Provide Actual Staff costs to manage the program so
that we can compare them with the budgeted amount.

If possible, by Sister or Friendship city.
o Staff costs of meeting with the delegations which
includes a presentation by the City Manager, slide
show, City Staff support, City photographer, City
Staff guided tour of the library, Community Hall,
and City Hall.
o Staff attendance at various Sister City and
Friendship City events (Bell ringing for Peace, for
example)
o Staff time making proclamations, speeches for
Mayor etc.
o Staff free Advertising costs such as promotional
videos, this requires staff time to write a script,
video edit, post the videos etc. Here are examples:
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zyfVVrQhs
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwlHxT5-f9I
• Provide travel costs whether covered by the city or not (we should know if individuals are traveling to cities
paid for by a Friendship or Sister City) and if it was for staff or a councilmember. The staff or councilmember
would have to report the costs covered by the Sister or 276
CC 05-06-2025
276 of 554
Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation
Date
Council
Approved
Friendship City and the city would have a record of
what costs were covered.
• How many of the 18 free facility uses were used and for how many hours? The budgeted amount should be the
max. cost? 18 x 4 sister cities x Number of Hours x Cost per hour? I mention this because the policy is very
vague surrounding the uses.
• Any costs I may be missing?
Please repeat the process for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25 so
far. We have had no update since 2023. Please indicate
which Sister/Friendship City the costs are for with a
total for each.”
277
CC 05-06-2025
277 of 554
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: April 15, 2025
Agenda Item #14
Subject
Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (“TBD List”).

Recommended Action

1. Review the TBD list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-13

2. Provide direction for items 14-18.

Background:

Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: This item "Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates" seems to be proposed by me through email on 1/15/2025. I cannot find the email from me and do not remember the context. Could you please include the original emails for this item so that the other Councilmembers have the full context on an agenda item request, rather than just a few words? (Chao)
Staff response: Attachment B – April 2025 Future Agenda Item List has been updated to include the email from 1/15/25 as requested.

Q2: Please include the original approved motions from the Minutes from the Feb. 4, 2025 meeting since the Attachment A does not seem to reflect the motions approved accurately. Below is what I copied from the Minutes, which I think accurately reflected what the Council approved on Feb. 4. Please update Attachment A based on the motions adopted by the Council.

Source: The Minutes of the Feb. 4 Council meeting
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1245843&GUID=81AE1770-A309- 483C-A668-EAED7524F8B2
SECOND AMENDED MOTION: Agendize the following items as soon as appropriate:

1. An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the 278
CC 05-06-2025
278 of 554
2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list (TBD List Items 1-4 combined)

2. An action item to re-enact the Economic Development Committee and the Legislative Action Committee with the original Muni Code, before they were removed in early 2023.

3. An action item to restore the Audit Committee responsibilities to restore previous responsibility.

4. An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission).

5. A budget balancing study session to consider potential budget reduction, such as staffing levels, unneeded contracts and to reconsider some service level reductions and permit fee increase for residents. a. Such as reducing fees for residents and increasing fees for non-residents

6. A study session on Environment Review Committee.

The second amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None AMENDED MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to approve the following:
• TBD list Item 6 - consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks - add this item to an agenda:

Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) • TBD list Item 11 - review the architecture standards for 5G towers – keep on TBD until it is added to the FY 2025-27 City Work Program.
• TBD list Item 5 - policy to provide access to documents made available for closed session - keep on TBD until the item is added to the Council Procedures Manual. • TBD list Item 16 - Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates – agendize this item as appropriate.
• Accept the staff recommendation for TBD list Items 12-15.

The amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: Fruen. Abstain: None. Absent: None. (Chao)
Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.

Q3: The Attachment B should be the April 2025 list of future agenda items. But some 279
CC 05-06-2025
279 of 554
3 items have been voted by the Council on Feb. 4 to agendize with modified language.

Please add a column to Attachment B "Date Council Approved" to reflect the date the council voted to agendize this item.
• For example, Item 15 in Attachment B for the audit committee should have "agendized by Council on 2/4/25" under the "Date Council Approved". Otherwise, it appears as if this is a new item the Council has not approved already to agendize.
• For example, Item 14 in Attachment B for the sound amplification devices should be "agendized by Council on 2/4/25" under the "Date Council Approved". And the description of this item from the approved Feb. 4 motion should be reflected in the description.
• You might wish to indicate whether an item was agendized as an action item or a study session or unspecified in the motion. (Chao)
Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.

Q4: The description for the item "A study session to consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks" in Attachment A (based on Feb. 4 approved motions) is not quite accuate.
• The item was proposed by me through an email sent on 9/12/202, which was mentioned at the 9/17/2024 council meeting. I have forwarded the same email again for the record of this meeting to provide some context of this request. • But this item was also included in the second approved motion with more detailed description:
"TBD list Item 6 - consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks - add this item to an agenda:

Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) " (From the second approved motion in the Minutes of Feb. 4 Council Meeting) • Please make corrections:
o Add the detailed description to Item 6 of Attachment A under the Motion column. Otherwise, it is not clear what that this item is about from the title alone.
• Since it was proposed by me, I kind of remember what I had requested. But the other council members and the public would need more description than this 280
CC 05-06-2025
280 of 554
4 very short description.
• In fact, I forwarded the request from a resident on 9/12/2024 to the City Clerk to request this to be added to the TBD list. The email is titled "Proposal to Amend Park Sound Amplification Policy". I have forwarded this request again for the record of this meeting. (Chao)
Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.

Q5: The approved motion from Feb. 4 states "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list (TBD List Items 1-4 combined)", which means that the Item 1-4 should be replaced by the action item as stated. Thus, Attachment A does not seem to follow the approved motion accurately.
• Please correct Attachment A so that the Motion column for Items 1-4 state "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list", to reflect the approved Feb. 4 motion.
• Please correct Attachment B accordingly. Attachment B should only list "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list" as one item instead. (Chao)
Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.

Q6: The approved Feb. 4 motion include "An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission)." Please make corrections so that Attachment A reflects the Feb. 4 motions approved by the Council.
• Please correct Attachment A so that the Motion column of Item 15 reflect the action item added by the Motion: "An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission)".
• Please correct Attachment B accordingly. Item 16 in the Attachment B should have the description as stated in the Feb. 4 motion to accurately describe the actual item on the future agenda items list. Attachment B should also accurately reflect that the item has received majority vote on Feb. 4. (Chao)
Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.
281
CC 05-06-2025
281 of 554
5 Q7. Item 12 ("Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing") in the Attachment B shows "At 4/2/25 Council Meeting" under the "Date Requested" column. I found the Minutes of the April 2 Council Meeting has more details:

MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it; include existing proposed bills on student housing and comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote:

Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:

None.

The Attachment B should include the language from the motion to better represent the request.
• To distinguish this item from a newly proposed the item without a vote of the council majority yet, under the "Date Council Approved" column (if added), this item should show "4/2/2025 approved by council to agendize", for example.

Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report.

Q8: For Item 11 in the Attachment B for so-called "RV parking". My original request, which I submitted for the record of this meeting, was not for "RV parking". The original request was applicable to all vehicles, but with the limited scope for the 72-hour parking rule.

At the suggestion of staff, the scope of this item was expanded to include oversized vehicles near residential areas. And then, in that case, I did request to also consider oversized vehicles in customer-facing retail area. Thus, the scope of the study session "to be heard at the May 6 Council meeting" has evolved from the original agenda request.

It might be a good idea to add under the Recommendation column the scope of the May 6 study session for accuracy and transparency.

Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:

A. Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B. Future Agenda Items List as of April 2025
Attachments Provided with this Supplemental 1:

A. Updated Attachment A - Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion
B. Updated Attachment B - Future Agenda Items List as of April 2025 C. Updated Staff Report
282
CC 05-06-2025
282 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13765 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
Agenda #: 13.

Subject: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024- 003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048)
That the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment A & B) to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-027 approving the First Addendum to an EIR and approving the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024-003); and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-028 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA2024-003).

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/30/2025
powered by Legistar™283
CC 05-06-2025
283 of 554

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 6, 2025
Subject
Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) Recommended Action
That the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment A & B) to:

1. Adopt the First Addendum to an EIR and approve the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024-003); and

2. Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).

Background
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Commercial/Residential with a maximum
residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre
Special Planning Area Heart of the City Specific Plan (West Stevens Creek subarea)
Zoning Designation P(CG, Res) (Planned Development zoning with General Commercial and Residential uses)
Net/gross lot area 7.9 acres/8.1 acres1
Approved Project Current Proposal
Units within Building 1 123 136
Total number of units within
the Westport Development 259 272
Residential Density 32.78 du/acre 34.4 du/acre
Density Bonus Requested 8.4% 12.8%
Height of Building 1 79.5 feet 78.6 feet
Memory Care Rooms 35 No change
284
CC 05-06-2025
284 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Approved Project Current Proposal
Building 1 Retail
Stevens Creek Blvd frontage 60% 10%
Rear of building 26% 5%
Retail Square Footage 17,600 4,000
Building 1 Parking
Residential 81 32
Residential Care 27 18
Retail 103 23
Total Building 1 211 73
Site and Location Description
Prior to the commencement of Westport’s development, the project site was known as the Oaks Shopping Center, which was a regional, multi-tenant outdoor shopping facility built in the 1970s that included restaurants and a movie theater. The site is in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Special Area within the Oaks Gateway of the West Stevens Creek subarea.

The approximately 8.1
gross-acre site is bounded
by Stevens Creek
Boulevard to the south,
Mary Avenue to the east
and north, and Highway
85 to the west. The
surrounding uses are the
Glenbrook Apartments to
the north, De Anza
College to the south
(across Stevens Creek
Boulevard), and the
Cupertino Senior Center
to the east (See Figure 1).

Previous Entitlements
On August 18, 2020, the City Council approved permits to allow construction of a mixeduse development on the site that was occupied by the Oaks Shopping Center. The primary components of that project were:
 Two residential/commercial buildings:

Building
2 Building
1 Townhomes/Rowhome
Figure 1 Approved Westport site plan.
285
CC 05-06-2025
285 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

 Building 1 was a six-story building with 131 senior, licensed assisted living units, 27 memory care residences, and 17,600 square-feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space.
 Building 2 was a six-story building with 48 BMR senior independent living units1 and 2,400 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial.  70 single-family residential townhouses and 18 single-family residential rowhouse condominiums.
 A one-level, below-ground parking garage with 191 parking spaces.  44,945 square feet of Residential Common Open Space
 2,915 square feet of Commercial Common Open Space
 386 onsite and offsite trees, replacing the 73 protected development trees proposed to be either removed or relocated.
 Height waivers of the 45 foot height limit in the General Plan to allow:
o Building 1 to be 70’ 0” to the eave line, and 79’ 6” to the roof ridge. o Building 2 to be 65’ to the eave line, and 74’ 6” to the roof ridge.  Slope line setback waivers of the 1:1 slope line setback from the curb line in the General Plan to allow
o a slope line setback of 1:1.70 for Building 1 and
o a slope line setback of 1:1.48 for Building 2.
 Incentive/concession allowing all BMR units to be consolidated in one of the two senior housing buildings (Building 2) rather than dispersed between the two senior housing buildings and townhouses/rowhouses.

The approval also included a vesting tentative map (VTM) (TM-2018-03) subdividing the property into two separate parcels (one 4.7 acre and one 3.1-acre parcel). Subsequently, a revised VTM (TM-2021-002) subdividing the property into three parcels, with the BMR building (Building 2) on its own parcel, was approved by City Council on September 7, 2021.

On December 21, 2021, the Cupertino City Council approved a Modification to a Development Permit (M-2021-003), an Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2021-007), and Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2021-003) to allow the following modifications to Building 1 of the Westport Development project:
 Limited the 8,000-square-foot ground floor dining facility to residents of Building 1 and their guests only, rather than being open to the public.2

1 Since early 2024, Building 2 has been occupied and functioning in its capacity as an age restricted BMR building. As of the date of this staff report, approximately 80 of the 88 townhomes/rowhouses have a certificate of occupancy.
2 The Department of Social Services prohibits dining areas for licensed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly from being open to the public.
286
CC 05-06-2025
286 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

 Adjusted the unit mix, adding more two-bedroom units while reducing studio units in Building 1, and adding eight memory care rooms (for a total of 35 memory care rooms), but decreasing the total residential unit count by that same number (131 to 123).
 A density bonus parking alternative standard that reduced the underground parking garage to a single floor limited to the areas under Building 1, while utilizing parking lifts and valet service to maintain the original stall count.  Reduced massing on the top floor to accommodate a sixth-floor aqua therapy pool.  Allowed 40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of the rear of the building to be occupied by non-retail uses, with no change in retail square footage from the original permit.

Current Development Permit Modification Request
Cascade Zak, representing the applicant, Related, is now requesting a modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) and an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA2024-003) to Building 1:
 Utilize their remaining density bonus Incentive/Concession to reduce the amount of retail from 17,600 square feet to 4,000 square feet.
 Request a density bonus to increase the senior assisted living dwelling count by 13 units, from 123 to 136, and to modify the unit mix. The number of memory care rooms remains unchanged at 35.
 Utilize provisions of state law (Assembly Bill 2097) to remove the underground parking facility (a decrease of 146 parking stalls for the development).  Make minor adjustments to the proposed structure, including reducing the building height, moving sixth floor amenities to the ground floor, and decreasing the overall square footage of the proposed building from 199,800 square feet to 195,253 square feet.
 Waive the application of the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee.

The applicant is proposing to utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus law and the newly enacted Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097) to achieve these changes. However, while the applicant is entitled to utilize provisions of the State Density Bonus law to reduce the retail footage if the applicant demonstrates that such reduction results in identifiable and actual cost savings, the provisions of AB2097 that prohibit cities from requiring minimum parking requirements do not apply to this project since the project was approved and entitled prior to the enactment of AB2097. Therefore, the applicant cannot apply AB2097 retroactively to an already entitled project.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at its April 22, 2025 meeting.

After much deliberation regarding the loss of retail and the loss of parking, the Planning 287
CC 05-06-2025
287 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Commission recommended (5-0) that City Council adopt the first amendment to the EIR and adopt resolutions (Attachments C&D) approving the application with added conditions of approval to the Modified Development Permit resolution as follows:
 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM

REQUIRED
The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.  RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

The City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

Proposed Project Modification Analysis:

1. Reduction in Retail
The Heart of the City Specific Plan limits the area of uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the public to no more than 25% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and no more than 50% of the rear of the building. On December 21, 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception allowing 40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of the rear of the building to be occupied by non-retail uses. There was no change approved in 2021 to the total retail square footage in Building 1 (17,600 sq. ft.) from that approved through the original 2020 permit.
288
CC 05-06-2025
288 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Approved Building 1 Ground Floor Proposed Building 1 Ground Floor Figure 2 Comparison between the approved and proposed retail portions of Building 1. Retail is filled in with red, resident amenities in orange, and Back-ofHouse/Support in blue.

Proposed Modification
In the submitted proposed modification, June 18, 2024, letter submitted by the applicant (Attachment E), states that since their application is a modification to the overall Westport Development project, the developer of Building 1 remains eligible for the second of two allowable State density bonus law incentives and concessions allowed for the 8.1-acre Westport Development. Therefore, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 13. As illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed retail locations are on the corner of Building 1 adjacent to Mary Avenue, as well as the development’s driveway entrance along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The other uses along Stevens Creek are active and administrative uses limited to resident access, including the front office and wellness center for the senior assisted living facility.

Staff Analysis:

The applicant suggests that the spaces currently entitled as a retail area in Building 1 occupy ground floor building space that could otherwise be used for mechanical systems

3 The Westport Development includes 29 units of a base density of 237 units that are designated very low income. State density bonus law allows the development two incentives/concessions. 289
CC 05-06-2025
289 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

and back-of-house spaces for the senior assisted living facility. The currently proposed locations for these uses are in more expensive-to-build basements or upper-level building locations. Under State Density Bonus law, a developer is entitled to such incentives and concessions if there are identifiable and actual cost savings. 4 Further, should Building 1 be constructed, an agreement requires the users of Building 1 to pay for a portion of shared infrastructure with Building 2 as on-going site maintenance costs. This allows the operator of the BMR building (Building 2) better to finance the longterm operating costs of affordable units.

As identified earlier in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommended a waiver of parkland in lieu of dedication fees (including those already paid) if the applicant were able to increase the amount of retail space in the development to a total of 8,000 square feet, without any additional parking provided. The City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

2. Assisted Living Unit Count
The Westport Development provides 12% of its base density as affordable to very lowincome households, which entitles the development to a 38.75% density bonus, or a total count of 329 units for the entire development pursuant to State density bonus law. As proposed, the total number of units in the development would increase from 259 to 272 units due to the addition of 13 assisted living units in Building 1 (12.8% Density Bonus).

This amounts to an increase from 123 assisted living units to 136 assisted living units in Building 1. The number of memory care rooms in Building 1 would remain unchanged at 35 units under the current proposal.

Staff Analysis
The original development approved in 2020, which included 48 BMR units and 219 market rate units (88 Townhome/Rowhomes, 131 Assisted Living units) was found consistent with the BMR Manual requiring that the BMR Units in Building 2 and Building 1:
 Be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.  Unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market- rate portion of residential projects.
 Interior features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.

4 Government Code Section 65915(d) strictly limits a city’s ability to deny an incentive or concession, requiring very specific findings supported with substantial evidence that the incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost savings or the incentive or concession would have a specific and adverse impact upon public health or safety, with the burden of proof upon the city. 290
CC 05-06-2025
290 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

The number of units proposed was within the limits of State Density Bonus Law, and the developer is mandated in accordance with the City’s BMR Manual to certain standards of “comparability” as mandated in the Manual’s section 2.3.4 (listed above).

Table 1 (below) shows the proposed unit mix within BMR Building 2 and the market-rate Building 1. The City Council had found that the original 2020 and 2021 approvals met the BMR Manual’s standard of comparability. Table 1 demonstrates that the comparability of the unit mix between Buildings 1 & 2, as proposed, is even more consistent with the City’s requirements than the project approved in 2021.

Table 1: Unit Comparability Between Buildings 1 & 2
Approved Building 1 (123 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.

Unit Count 12 75 36
Mix Percentage 10% 61% 29%
Proposed Building 1 (136 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.

Unit Count 27 79 30
Mix Percentage 20% 58% 22%
Building 2 (48 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size 518.6 s.f. 615.7 s.f. 843 s.f.

Unit Count 9 28 11
Mix Percentage 19% 58% 23%
Staff believes that the City Council should support the added units as they are within the allowed density of the development as approved, as well as continuing and improving the comparability between the units of Buildings 1 & 2.

3. Parking Reduction
Due to the amount of affordable housing and location of the site, the project had been previously approved with a Density Bonus reduced parking standard. The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included to address the parking needs for Building 1 users (residents, visitors, staff and retail uses) and 23 spaces for Building 2 residents.

Through the current modification, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the underground parking and provide all necessary parking at the surface level. However, the applicant will continue meeting existing obligations to provide parking for the other portions of Westport Development (Building 2 residents and the town homes) and will adjust the parking provided for the users of Building 1 to be more reflective of the parking required to serve their needs, as further described below. 291
CC 05-06-2025
291 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Staff Analysis
Parking for Building 2 users and Townhomes
The Westport Development utilizes the provisions of State density bonus law to provide

0.5 space per bedroom and the City may not impose a different, higher parking requirement for the development. Under State density bonus law, the project needed to provide a total of 30 spaces for Building 2. Seven of these spaces were provided at the surface level on the parcel on which Building 2 is located, while the remaining 23 spaces were to be provided in the underground parking garage. The applicant is now proposing to provide these 23 spaces, previously located below grade under Building 1, at-grade on the parcel that Building 1 will be located on. In addition, the applicant will continue to provide seven surface parking spaces for retail use in Building 2 on the Building 1 parcel.

The existing townhomes each have two car garages, with an additional 21 surface spaces available for guests on the parcel on which the townhomes are located. The applicant is proposing to continue to provide six parking spaces as guest parking for the townhome portion of the development at surface level on the Building 1 parcel. As a condition of approval, the applicant must mark all the spaces with signage to identify the intended parking space user prior to issuance of final occupancy.

Parking for Building 1 users
Changes to parking provided for Building 1 users include eliminating all parking spaces for the assisted living or memory care residents, providing 3 surface parking spaces for residents, 10 surface spaces for employees, 5 spaces for guests and 16 surface parking spaces for the reduced retail space, as indicated in Table 2 below. The applicant intended to rely upon the provisions of AB2097 to eliminate the underground parking but provide as much parking as they believe will be needed to serve Building 1 users and that the City may not impose any minimum parking requirements on their project. While the project site, due to its location, is eligible for AB2097’s parking provisions, the Westport project itself was approved prior to enactment of these provisions, and thus AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project.

Table 2: Comparison of Approved and Proposed Parking
Previously Approved Proposed
Residential (Building 1)5 80 (below grade) 8
Residential (Building 2)6 26 (below grade) 26
Residential (Townhomes) 6 (surface) 6
Bldg. 1 Facility Employees 28 (below grade) 10

5 The Westport Development was approved with a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom in conformance with CA state density bonus law. Required parking for Building 1 residents would be 83. 6 See footnote 4. Required parking for Building 2 residents would be 30 spaces, seven spaces on the lot Building 2 is on, and the remaining on the lot that Building 1 is on. 292
CC 05-06-2025
292 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Retail (Building 1) 71 (10 below grade, 61 surface) 16
Retail (Building 2) 7 (surface) 7
Total Building 1
218 (144 below grade and
74 surface) 73 (all surface)
However, since the property is in the Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P (CG/Res)) zoning district7, staff prepared a parking analysis for the Building 1 users as seen in Table 3 below, based on the following information provided by the applicant (Attachment I):
 The median age of the tenants in the Senior assisted living units is anticipated to be approximately 84, based on the applicant/operator’s experience at similar facilities.

Therefore, a very small percentage (8%) of the tenants will drive or own a vehicle.

According to the applicant many residents dispose of, or donate, their vehicles prior to downsizing into one of their facilities, preferring to use the concierge vehicles operated by the facility.
 Almost 75% of the employees of their other facilities are incentivized to use alternative means of transportation or park elsewhere (here, De Anza College facilities are located close by, and the operator is in talks with them regarding parking arrangements).
 Guests are usually only at the facility for a maximum of 90 minutes per visit and can use public parking or park at De Anza College, if necessary.  Retail reduced to 4,000 square feet, significantly reducing parking demand based on the City’s retail parking standard of 1 space per 250 square feet.

Table 3: Anticipated Parking Demand vs. Proposed Supply For Building 1 Previously Approved Proposed Expected Gap
Residents 80 3 14 11
Employees (40 max per shift) 28 10 13 3
Guests (included in resident count) 5 10 5
Retail 71 16 16 0
Total 179 34 53 19
Based on the parking analysis, there appears to be a gap of approximately 19 spaces between the reasonably expected parking demand and the currently proposed parking space. Discussions with the applicant have indicated that they are voluntarily open to

7 CMC 19.80: Planned Development Zones is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. 293
CC 05-06-2025
293 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

adding surface parking spaces, where possible, to allow the parking supply to get closer to the expected parking demand. Upon an analysis of the site, it appears that there is room to add additional surface parking spaces within the site. However, the specific number of additional spaces that could be added has yet to be determined. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to update the site plan to add a minimum of 20 onsite parking spaces, prior to issuance of building permits.

In the alternative, the applicant has suggested that they could eliminate the 4,000 square feet of retail space being provided in Building 1, by modifying their remaining Density Bonus Incentive/Concession request, which would allow the use of 16 spaces, currently earmarked for retail uses, for the residential portion of Building 1.

Staff recommends that the parking count as conditioned with the project, consistent with similarly programmed assisted living communities in the area, will provide enough parking on-site.

If the City Council disagrees with the above analysis, it could either recommend a different parking count that the developer must provide based on a different justification or deny the modification to the proposed parking arrangement on the basis that AB2097 does not apply to this project.

4. Architectural & Site Approval
As described previously, the developer proposes modifying Building 1 as follows:
 Increasing the footprint of the curved (sickle) portion of the building along Mary Avenue by 8 feet.
 Relocating the memory care terrace to the interior of the project to overlook the central green.
 Reducing ground floor height from 20 feet to 18 feet, with incremental height increases to the upper floors. The overall building height would be reduced to 78.6 feet due to this change.
 Moving the therapy pool terrace and wellness gym to the ground floor from the sixth floor. This reduces mass along Stevens Creek Boulevard on the sixth floor.

Staff Analysis
None of the changes listed above, have any effect on the programming of the site, except as previously described in the discussions related to the reduction of retail use and elimination of underground parking. The overall architectural theme of the project is not proposed to be modified with this application and the project proposes to continue to be very similar to the architectural style (Mediterranean) that was previously approved.

Therefore, Staff feels that City Council should support the modifications as proposed. 294
CC 05-06-2025
294 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

5. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit) as Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fees. The applicant has identified the following as reasons for the City waiving the fee:
 “New pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue through the project. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, they could improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including Creation of a connection between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.
 Residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on City park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.
 Strategy HE-2.3.9 of the Housing Element requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails.”
Staff analysis
In accordance with the Municipal Code (CMC 13.08.100), park land shall be dedicated to the City or the fee in lieu thereof shall be paid, as determined by the City, at the time of building permit issuance or recordation of a final subdivision map, whichever occurs earliest. The City has consistently determined that the open space provided on site does not conform to the private open space (for which credit may be provided) nor the park land dedication requirement consistent with the requirements of CMC Chapter 13.08.050 (F). Therefore, the determination has been that the project must pay a Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee subject to CMC Chapter 13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. To date, the developer has already paid $3.69MM for 123 units8. With the change to the programming, that is, providing 13 more assisted living units, the applicant would owe park land in lieu of dedication fees for these additional units in the approximate amount of $300,000.

The walkway referenced by the applicant as the justification for requesting a fee waiver is an existing vehicular path between Building 1 and the remainder of the Westport development, which has long been a part of the site design. It is not a new design feature,

8 $3.93M in park fees on 12/21/21 (131 units x $30,000). However, when the project scope was modified to reduce units from 131 to 123, the City issued the developer a refund of $240,000 (8 units x $30,000). 295
CC 05-06-2025
295 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

nor does it have separated/designated bike lanes or public access easements. As a result, the project should not receive credit for any connection afforded by this primarily vehicular connection. Additionally, since the project will be occupied by seniors, the park land dedication in lieu of fee is already discounted to allow for the estimated reduction in use of public open spaces by seniors as allowed by Chapter 13.08.

Further, although the Housing Element Strategy HE-2.3.9 may require the City to explore reduction in development fees, a policy to implement this strategy is not expected to be adopted until sometime in mid-2026. Accordingly, staff recommend that the City require the applicant to pay the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee for the additional 13 units and does not recommend a refund/waiver of the fees that have already been paid.

However, the City could waive the fee if it wishes to assist this developer in the development of this market-rate project.

Approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for incentivizing adding an additional 4,000 square feet of retail (for a total of up to 8,000 square feet of retail) would require the City to refund $3.69MM in fees already paid and agree that applicants need not pay the additional unpaid fees associated with the additional 13 units (approximately $300,000).

Staff recommends that the City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed and conditioned the project.

Reasons for Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the project modifications, with the conditions of the approval proposed, because the changes to the project will not create adverse traffic, noise, or safety impacts to the surrounding area and each finding for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapters 19.56, 19.156, and 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made as reflected in the findings of the draft resolutions attached. The Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
296
CC 05-06-2025
296 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

Fiscal Impact
If City Council would agree to the added Planning Commission condition that incentivizes the addition of 4,000 square of retail, the City could lose up to approximately $4 million in Park in-lieu fees.

California Environmental Quality Act
An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures were adopted and made conditions of project approval.

The City conducted a CEQA analysis of changes to the project to determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum to an EIR should be prepared where there are (1) no substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; and (3) no new, previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects.

The analysis determined that proposed changes to the project meet the criteria for an addendum. To this end, an addendum was prepared (see Attachment F), in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The addendum reviews each topic in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and concludes that neither the modifications to the project nor new circumstance or information will result in an environmental impact that is new or more severe than the impacts studied in the Initial Study and EIR.

Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of 297
CC 05-06-2025
297 of 554
M-2024-003,
ASA-2024-003
Westport Cupertino
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
May 6, 2025

previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR. Therefore, Staff recommends that City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A. Draft Resolution for M-2024-003
B. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003
C. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05
D. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-06
E. Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024 F. Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 G. Project Plans
H. Public Comments
I. Applicant Parking Exhibit
298
CC 05-06-2025
298 of 554
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY

ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND
FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1
LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN
#326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and
299
CC 05-06-2025
299 of 554
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses. Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
300
CC 05-06-2025
300 of 554

2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.

3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).)
The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the

1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net.
301
CC 05-06-2025
301 of 554
Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need.

The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable:
a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested.

The application isfor a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development).

Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensiveto-build basement or upper-level building locations.

2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 302
CC 05-06-2025
302 of 554
c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met. The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable.
e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable.
f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.

While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixed- used development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted.

Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced.
h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in offstreet parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 303
CC 05-06-2025
303 of 554

4. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence:
a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete.
c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby:

1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and

2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and

3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and
304
CC 05-06-2025
304 of 554
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution.

4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide.

5. PARKING MODIFICATION
The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care).

6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE
All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify:
305
CC 05-06-2025
305 of 554
a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business
b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use
d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests

7. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.

8. RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

9. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The 306
CC 05-06-2025
306 of 554
applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements,reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC

WORKS DEPARTMENT

11. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE
Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees inlieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter

13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY

FIRE DEPARTMENT
307
CC 05-06-2025
307 of 554

12. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements.

13. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s)

14. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved.

Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905

15. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568

16. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such 308
CC 05-06-2025
308 of 554
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7

17. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.

2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

18. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED
Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1.

19. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac.

CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

20. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS
Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating 309
CC 05-06-2025
309 of 554
fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.

The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways.

Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends.

21. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4

22. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.

23. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33

24. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other 310
CC 05-06-2025
310 of 554
sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1

25. FIRE LANES REQUIRED
The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
311
CC 05-06-2025
311 of 554
Resolution No.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND
DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and 312
CC 05-06-2025
312 of 554
Resolution No.

WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.

The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two 313 CC 05-06-2025
313 of 554
Resolution No.

multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners.

The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 314
CC 05-06-2025
314 of 554
Resolution No.

documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.

Signage approval is not included in this application.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures.

The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multifamily development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, 315
CC 05-06-2025
315 of 554
Resolution No.

G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.

The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.

The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 316
CC 05-06-2025
316 of 554
Resolution No.