Cupertino City Council
July 1, 2025

818
CC 07/01/2025
818 of 1130
Strategy ES-7.3.1
Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater
treatment systems and green infrastructure to mitigate
pollutant loads and flows.

Yes LID designs incorporated into project design.

Health and Safety Element
Policy HS-3.2
Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.

Yes Fire Department review completed.

Policy HS-3.7 Require on-site fire suppression materials and equipment. Yes On-site fire suppression systems will be
provided as required by Santa Clara County
Fire.

Strategy HS-4.2.2
Request County Sheriff review and comment on
development applications for security and public
measures.

Yes County Sheriff review completed.

Policy HS-8.1
Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map (see
Figure D-1 in Appendix D) and the City Municipal Code
to evaluate land use decisions.

Yes Noise Assessment provided by applicant.

Infrastructure Element
Strategy INF-2.4.2 Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments.

Yes, as
Conditioned
Undergrounding of utilities is proposed, to the
extent feasible. Project is conditioned to comply
with Public Works requirements for new utility
lines.

Strategy INF-5.1.2
Require developers to pay their fair share of costs for, or in some cases construct, infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are met.

Yes, as
Conditioned
Project is conditioned to meet Sanitary District
requirements based on District comments.

Policy INF-7.2
Ensure that public and private developments build new
and on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.

Yes
Environmental and Sustainability Division
review of waste diversion requirements
completed.

Recreation, Parks, and Community Services Element
Strategy RPC-2.2.2 Require major developments to incorporate private open space and recreational facilities. Yes Private open space provided.

Strategy RPC-3.1.1 Maximize the use of native plants and drought-tolerant planting. Yes Planting plans incorporate use of native and drought tolerant plantings.

Heart of the City Specific Plan
Reference Specific Plan Requirement Consistent? City Comment Land Use and Zoning – Permitted and Conditional Uses
Section 1.01.020 (B) Residential density shall be per the General Plan Land Use and zoning maps Yes Density is consistent with General Plan.

Section 1.01.020 (B)
On sites with a mixed-use residential designation,
residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element
sites. Conditional use permits will be required for
residential units on… Non-Housing Element mixed-use
sites.

Yes Conditional Use Permit U-2024-007
incorporated into project.

Section 1.01.020 (B)
The amount of building space devoted to
retail/commercial uses shall have a viable and substantial retail component.

Density Bonus
Incentive
Requested
No retail provided. Density Bonus incentive
requested.

Building Height, Setbacks, and Orientation
Section 1.01.030 (A)
(3)
Mechanical equipment and utility structures shall be
screened from public view. Yes Screening plan provided.

Section 1.01.030 (B) (1)
and (3)
Minimum setback for new development shall be 35 feet
from the edge of curb (nine (9) feet from the required
Boulevard Landscape Easement; See section 1.01.040(D)).

Special Architectural Features – subject to City review:
entrance porticoes, canopies, and or other features may extend up to four (4) feet into the front setback area.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 1.01.030 (C) (1)
and (3)
Minimum side setback for new development shall be onehalf (1/2) the height of the building, or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater.

Uninhabitable building elements – such as chimneys and
projecting eaves may encroach up to three (3) feet in to a required setback.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 1.01.030 (C) (2)
and (3)
For new development along developed or zoned
residential properties the rear setback shall be equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the height of the building with a minimum setback of 20 feet.

Uninhabitable building elements – such as chimneys and
projecting eaves may encroach up to three (3) feet in to a required setback.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 1.01.030 (D)
The main building entrance to all buildings shall be located on the front building facade, a fronting building corner, or a side-facing facade visible from the street frontage. Other orientations may be permitted subject to City review.

Yes Buildings are oriented to have entrances along
Stevens Creek Blvd where possible.

Site Development and Parking
Section 1.01.040 (A)
(1)
Direct pedestrian access in the form of a walkway shall be provided from the Stevens Creek Boulevard sidewalk to Yes Buildings are oriented to have entrances along Stevens Creek Blvd where possible and

819
CC 07/01/2025
819 of 1130
the main building entrance, i.e., pedestrian access to
building entrances shall not require walking between
parking spaces.
pathways are provided from Stevens Creek
sidewalk to fronting residences.

Section 1.01.040 (A)
(2) (a)
Maximum number of curb cuts shall be one (1) two-way
curb cut or two (2) one-way curb cuts on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Additional curb cuts may be allowed upon
review and approval by the Public Works Department.

Yes
The proposed project incorporates two
driveway accesses, consistent with the
requirements for fire access and the existing
site conditions.

Section 1.01.040 (A)
(2) (d) Service access shall be from rear parking areas.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 1.01.040 (B) (2) No visible parking garages shall be permitted along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Yes No garages proposed to be facing Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Section 1.01.040 (C) (2)
(a)
Common, usable outdoor space shall be provided for all
multi-unit buildings. A minimum of one hundred fifty
(150) square feet shall be provided for each unit excluding required setback areas; see Design Guidelines.

Yes
Provided plans show calculations for common
open space in all landscaped areas excluding
the area within required setbacks.

Section 1.01.040 (C) (2)
(b)
Private outdoor space shall also be provided with at least sixty (60) square feet for each unit. Private space shall be in the form of a patio or deck attached to the unit, not less than six (6) feet clear in any dimension.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Minimum of 60 square feet of private outdoor
space provided per unit. Density Bonus Waiver
requested to reduce the minimum clearance.

Section 1.01.040 (D)
(1)
All new development shall establish an easement twentysix (26) feet in width along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. The easement shall consist of:
(i) a curbside planting strip ten 10) feet in width,
(ii) a sidewalk six (6) feet in width, and
(iii) a back-of-walk planting strip ten (10) feet in width.

Planting strip areas shall contain low growing
groundcover and street trees in accordance with the
policies of the Streetscape Element.

Yes Easement and dedication will be required as a
condition of approval of the Final Map.

Section 1.01.040 (D)
(2)
Adjacent to designated or developed residential properties attractive screen fencing or walls shall be provided along the side or rear property lines to screen buildings, service areas, and parking areas; a minimum five (5) foot planting area shall be established within and adjacent to the fence or wall with evergreen trees planted at a minimum spacing of twenty-five (25) feet on center. Lighting from commercial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential properties.

Yes
The project provides landscaping areas with
trees adjacent to the southern property line
bordering the existing single-family
neighborhood. The project is conditioned to
ensure that these landscaped areas remain clear
of accessory structures.

Section 1.01.040 (D)
(3)
Shade trees at a spacing of approximately twenty-five (25) feet on center shall be planted within required curbside planting strips.

Yes Shade trees are provided to the extent feasible
based on the existing traffic requirements.

Section 1.01.040 (D)
(4)
Screen Fences and Walls – Where the fence or wall is not adjacent to residential property, streets and sidewalks, the fence or wall shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. Where a
commercial and residential property share a common
property line, the sound wall separating the uses shall have a minimum height of eight (8) feet. The sound wall may be taller than eight (8) feet subject to approval as part of a development plan.

Yes Existing ten-foot walls to remain and eight-foot
fences are proposed.

Section 1.01.040 (E) (1) Variety in the Design of Building Facades – shall be required so that block frontages are varied and attractive. Yes Variation in the design of building facades has been provided.

Section 1.01.040 (E) (2)
Building forms shall be such that buildings adjacent to residentially developed parcels shall be stepped back or terraced or have adequate setback so that privacy is
maintained. Buildings requiring terracing shall have a 1.5:1 setback to height ratio.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Site Improvements and Landscaping Guidelines
Section 2.01.040 (C) Chain link, barbed wire and razor wire fencing are not allowed. Yes No chain link, barbed wire, or razor wire fencing is proposed.

Street Plantings
The planting theme is a “Flowering Orchard.” It features a formal planting of Flowering Pear (Pyrus calleriana
“Chanticleer”) and low growing groundcover in curbside
planting strips.

Yes Proposed street tree type and planting
complies.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance (CMC Title 19) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 19.36 Standards
Section 19.36.070 (A) Maximum Lot Coverage – 40% of net lot area Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 19.36.070 (G)
Minimize privacy intrusion into all or a significant portion of private outdoor spaces, or interior spaces through the use of windowless walls, atria, enclosed courtyards, and buildings oriented to public and private streets, or other techniques which rely upon structural design rather than mitigation relying solely upon a landscaping solution.

Yes
Privacy intrusion measures, including building
design and privacy screening have been
incorporated to minimize privacy intrusion into
neighboring residential properties.

820
CC 07/01/2025
820 of 1130
Section 19.36.070 (I)
No parking shall be permitted in a setback area where the lot adjoins property located in a single‐family (R‐1) zoning district.

Yes No parking is proposed in the setback area
adjacent to a single‐family (R‐1) zoning district.

Chapter 19.48 Standards
Section 19.48.020
Fences and walls separating commercial, industrial, offices, and institutional zones from residential zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials designed to:
a. Acoustically isolate part of or all noise emitted by future uses within the commercial, industrial, offices, or institutional zones. The degree of acoustical
isolation shall be determined during the design
review process.
b. Ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential
dwelling units.

Yes
Sound attenuation fencing is not required
between commercial and mixed-use sites. The
applicant has proposed an 8’ sound attenuation
fence to address potential noise impacts and an
existing 10’ wall will address privacy impacts.

Chapter 19.102 Standards
Section 19.102.030
(A)
All projects that are subject to the bird-safe development requirements shall submit the following:

1. Elevation drawings indicating the bird-safe
treatment and how the proposed treatment meets
the requirements of Section 19.102.030(B) and (D);

2. Cross sections, if required;

3. Other exhibits indicating consideration and
incorporation of the regulations in Section

19.102.030(B), (C), and (D); and

4. Biologist report in support of alternative compliance method pursuant to Section 19.102.030(B)(3), if
proposed.

Yes Insect netting is proposed to meet
requirements.

Section 19.102.030 (B)

1. Façades of all projects subject to bird-safe development requirements shall have:
a. No more than 10% of the surface area of the façade
be untreated glass between the ground and 60 feet
above ground.
b. No more than 5% of the surface area of the façade
be untreated glass between 60 feet above ground
and up.

2. Standard Compliance Treatments: The Planning
Division may maintain a list of acceptable bird-safe
treatments that may be updated from time to time. The
list may include, but not be limited to, permanent
treatments such as opaque glass, window muntins,
exterior insect screens, exterior netting, or special glass treatments such as fritting to provide visual cues and
reduce the likelihood of bird collisions. Glass
treatments must have high color contrast with the
glass and be applied to the outermost surface. Prior to publication of the list, the Planning Division may
review information available from interest groups,
such as the National Audubon Society.

3. Alternative Compliance Method: Property
owners/applicants may propose an alternate
compliance method recommended by a qualified
biologist to meet the requirements and intent of this
section. The alternate compliance method shall be
peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant, paid for by
the applicant, and subject to the approval of the
Director of Community Development.

Yes
Insect netting is proposed to meet requirements
and no more than 10% of the surface area of
each façade will be untreated glass.

Section 19.102.030 (D)
All projects shall:

1. Avoid the funneling of flight paths along buildings
or trees towards a building façade.

2. Avoid use of highly reflective glass or highly
transparent glass.

3. Not include skyways or walkways, balconies,
freestanding walls, or building corners made of
untreated glass or other transparent materials, or
any other design elements that are untreated and
through which trees, landscape areas, water
features or the sky are visible from the exterior or
from one side of the transparent element to the
other.

Yes Proposed design complies with these
requirements.

Section 19.102.040 (A)
Projects subject to outdoor lighting regulations must
submit the following information:

1. A site plan indicating the location of all outdoor
lighting fixtures.

2. A description of each lighting fixture. This
description may include, but not be limited to,
manufacturer’s catalog cuts and drawings
Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been conditioned to provide all
required information and meet all dark sky
lighting requirements prior to issuance of
Building Permits.

821
CC 07/01/2025
821 of 1130
(including sections if requested), lamp types, and
lumen outputs.

3. Photometric plans, prepared, stamped and signed
by a licensed professional engineer qualified in
outdoor lighting, depicting the location of all
outdoor lighting fixtures and building-mounted
lighting fixtures and a maximum ten-foot by tenfoot grid of both the initial and maintained lighting levels on the site, including any impact on adjacent
properties.

4. The project lighting plan shall indicate how lighting has been coordinated with any associated
landscaping plan to prevent site planning conflicts.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(1)
All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded fixtures,
directed downward to meet the particular need and away
from adjacent properties and rights-of way to avoid light trespass, except:
a. Low-voltage Landscape Lighting: Low-voltage
landscape lighting, such as that used to illuminate
fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not
have to be shielded fixtures and may use
uplighting, provided that they use no more than ten
(10) watt incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a
maximum of 150 lumens (whichever is less),and not
directed toward the right-of-way.
b. Architectural Features: Uplighting may be used to
highlight special architectural features.
c. Public Art: Alternative lighting standards may be
used to illuminate public art or serve as public art
subject to the review and approval by the Arts and
Culture Commission.
d. Historic Lighting Fixtures: Lighting fixtures that are historic or that exhibit a historical period
appearance, as determined by the Director of
Community Development, need not be fully
shielded.
e. String Lighting: String Lighting may be used in
compliance with Section 19.102.040 (B) (12)
Yes, as
Conditioned
The project is conditioned to provide compliant
light fixtures, prior to Building Permit issuance.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(2)
a. No exterior light, combination of exterior lights, or activity shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with
the illumination level measured at the property line
between the lot on which the light is located and the
adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate
lighting.
b. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way.
c. The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of ten foot-candles, when
measured at finished grade.
d. Parking lots, sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles on properties with four
or more units, mixed-use development, and nonresidential development shall be illuminated with uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to
achieve uniform and adequate intensity are:
i. Average horizontal maintained illumination
shall not be more than three foot-candle.
ii. Maximum to minimum ratio should be between
6:1 and 10:1, but shall not be more than 10:1.
e. Critical areas of illumination such as stairways, ramps and main walkways may have a higher illumination.

Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been conditioned to provide all
required information and meet all dark sky
lighting requirements prior to issuance of
Building Permits.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(3)
All light sources shall have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less
Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been conditioned to provide all
required information and meet all dark sky
lighting requirements prior to issuance of
Building Permits.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(4)
All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be
motion sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later, except for:
a. Critical lighting pursuant to section 2(e) above;
b. Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas,
walkways, and driveways area required to remain
illuminated after 11:00 p.m. by the California
Yes
Only critical areas of illumination are to remain
illuminated after 11 p.m., consistent with CBC
requirements.

822
CC 07/01/2025
822 of 1130
Building Code or state law;
c. Lighting of an appropriate intensity, allowed in
conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate
past 11:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit; and
d. Outdoor solar powered pathway lights that are 25
lumens or less.
e. Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway
(examples include bollard, in-place step, or building
mounted), provided that such lighting is a
maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway,
fully shielded, and downward directed
Section 19.102.040 (B)
(5)
Automated control systems, such as motion sensors and
timers, shall be used to meet the outdoor lighting
requirements.
a. Photocells or photocontrols shall be used to
extinguish all outdoor lighting automatically when
sufficient daylight is available.
b. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall
extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation.
c. Automated controls shall be full programmable and
supported by battery or similar backup
Yes, as
Conditioned
A condition of approval is included to ensure
that any proposed lighting will remain in
compliance with this standard.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(6)
Security lighting may be provided when necessary to
protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply:
a. Security lighting shall be controlled by a
programmable motion-sensor device, except where
continuous lighting is required by the California
Building Code. All lighting activated by motion
sensors shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes
after activation. Automated controls shall be fully
programmable and supported by battery or similar
backup.
b. Security lighting shall be downward directed,
shielded, and not be mounted at a height that
exceeds 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade
to the bottom of the fixture.
c. Floodlights shall not be permitted.
d. Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter,
such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass.
e. Motion-activated security lights shall not use lamps that exceed 100 watt incandescent bulb or LED
equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens
(whichever is less)
Yes, as
Conditioned
A condition of approval is included to ensure
that any proposed lighting will remain in
compliance with this standard.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(7)
a. Lighting fixtures must be of a design that complements building and landscaping design.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in height,
intensity, and scale to the use they are serving.
c. Parking lot lights in non-residential zones shall not exceed a height of 21 feet, and any wall-mounted lights shall not exceed a height of 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture.

Yes
Proposed lights do not exceed the height
limitations of this standard and are designs that
complement the building and landscaping
design.

Chapter 19.124 Standards
Section 19.124.030
(A) (2)
Vehicles may be placed, kept or parked these areas,
provided a minimum clearance of three feet is maintained from any structure.

Yes Clearance is maintained for unenclosed parking
areas.

Section 19.124.040 (A) Multi-Family Use – Two spaces per unit (1 covered and 1 open) of 10’ x 20’ each Yes 118 parking spaces provided for the proposed 59 units.

Section 19.124.040 (K)
The accessible parking requirement for the disabled is
embodied in Section 1129 B of the California Building
Code, as amended, is hereby incorporated into this chapter by reference.

Yes Accessible parking provided.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(1) 5% of total parking area shall be provided as landscaping. Yes Planting area adjacent to parking exceeds 5% of parking area.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(2)
Parking lot trees:
i. Shall be planted or exist at a rate of one tree for every five parking stalls for every ten spaces in a single
row.
ii. Only fifty percent of the trees located along the
perimeter of the parking area may count towards the
required number of trees.
iii. A parking facility with larger trees with high
canopies may be allowed to increase the number of
parking stalls (up to 10 parking stalls per tree)
depending on the size of the tree and canopy size.

Yes Less than 10 spaces proposed, no trees
required.

823
CC 07/01/2025
823 of 1130
Section 19.124.040 (N)
(3)
Landscape Planter Strip shall be at least three feet wide by the length of the parking space.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(4)
Trees shall be offset to prevent vehicles from bumping into them. Yes No trees are provided in parking areas.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(5)
When parking is provided adjacent to a side or rear
property line, landscape buffer (inclusive of curbing and vehicle overhang allowance) shall be five feet wide.

Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(6)
a. Landscape areas shall be enclosed by a six-inch wide continuous flat curb allowing parking lot run off into
landscaping area, infiltration islands or swales.
b. Concrete wheel stops shall be placed on top of the
flat curb and shall be provided at a rate of one per
two stalls.
c. Landscape planter strips at the end of the parking
aisles adjacent to a driveway shall be enclosed by a
six-inch raised concrete curb with drainage outlets to
help delineate the driveways or aisles.
d. Parking stall length may be decreased by up to two
feet but must provide an equivalent vehicle
overhang into landscaped areas.

Yes Parking area details show that parking area
landscaping meets these requirements.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(7)
Curbed planter strips shall be provided at the end of each parking aisle. Landscape planter strip shall be at least three feet wide and the length of a parking stall.

Yes Parking aisle are bordered by landscape areas.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(9)
Trees required to meet any section of this title shall be a minimum of fifteen-gallon size. Yes No parking lot trees required.

Section 19.124.040 (N)
(10)
All trees shall be protected by wheel stops, curbing,
bollards or other similar barriers as appropriate. Yes All trees are located behind curbs, wheel stops, and other similar barriers.

Section 19.124.040 (O)
(1)
In order to reduce urban runoff and provide water quality benefits in parking lots, all new parking lots shall
incorporate bio-swales in the required landscaping buffers meeting the following standards:
i. Longitudinal slope of the swale shall be between one percent and five percent.
ii. Swales of greater than three percent may be required to install check dams to reduce velocity through swale.
iii.Side slope shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal : vertical). iv.All swales shall be required to provide an adequate
under-drain system to prevent ponding. Swales shall be
designed to eliminate any ponding of water for more
than forty-eight hours
Yes Plans include bio-swales in accordance with
this standard.

Section 19.124.040 (O)
(2)
Use permeable or semi-permeable materials for the parking stalls. Yes Design includes use of pervious and/or semipervious paving in parking stalls.

Section 19.124.040 (P)
Bicycle parking shall be provided in multi-family
residential developments at a rate of one Class I space per two residential units.

These facilities are intended for long-term parking and are intended to protect the entire bicycle or its individual components and accessories from theft. The facility also protects the cycle from inclement weather, including wind driven rain. The three design alternatives for Class I
facilities are as follows:
a. Bicycle Locker
b. Restricted Access
c. Enclosed Cages
Yes
Long term bicycle parking is provided within
the parking garages of each individual unit and
short-term bicycle parking is provided
throughout the project site.

Section 19.124.040 (Q)
(1)
All lighting in parking areas shall be 3,000 Kelvin or less unless otherwise approved as part of a development plan for uniformity, not allowing any dark areas in the parking lot.

Yes The proposed lighting temperature is 3000K.

Section 19.124.040 (Q)
(2)
i. The light fixtures shall be oriented and designed to preclude any light and direct glare to adjacent
residential properties.
ii. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way.

Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been conditioned to comply
with the City’s lighting requirements prior to
issuance of Building Permits.

Section 19.124.040 (Q)
(3)
Parking lots, sidewalks and other areas accessible to
pedestrians and automobiles shall be illuminated with a uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to
achieve uniform and adequate intensity are:
a. Average Horizontal Maintained Illumination –
Between one and three foot-candles
b. Average Maximum to Minimum Ratio – Should be
generally between six and ten to one
c. Minimum Intensity Above Parking Lot Surface –
Minimum three foot-candles vertically above the
parking lot surface shall be maintained.

Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been conditioned to comply
with the City’s lighting requirements prior to
issuance of Building Permits.

824
CC 07/01/2025
824 of 1130
Section 19.124.040 (Q)
(4)
Critical areas such as stairways, ramps and main walkways may have a higher illumination. Yes Higher illumination is proposed for primary walkway.

Section 19.124.040 (Q)
(5)
Shatter resistant lenses shall be placed over the light to deter vandalism Yes Proposed lights include shatter resistant lenses.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 18) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 18.12 Standards
Section 18.12.020 (A) A tentative map and final map shall be required for all subdivisions of land creating five or more parcels… Yes Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM-1) provided.

Chapter 18.16 Standards
Section 18.16.010 The tentative map …shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed surveyor… Yes The provided Tentative Map was prepared by a registered civil engineer.

Section 18.16.030 Public utilities and agencies shall certify that the subdivision can be adequately served. Yes Will serve letters from applicable utility services were provided.

Chapter 18.32 Standards
Section 18.32.030
The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural
section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and
transitions.

Yes, as
Conditioned
To be completed in accordance with Public
Works’ conditions of approval.

Section 18.32.040
Stormwater runoff from the subdivision shall be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The
storm drain system shall be designed for ultimate
development of the watershed. The storm drain system
shall provide for the protection of abutting and offsite properties that would be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributed to the development; off-site storm drain improvements may be required to satisfy this
requirement.

Yes, as
Conditioned
To be completed in accordance with Public
Works’ conditions of approval.

Section 18.32.050 Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved sanitary sewer system.

Yes, as
Conditioned
Project is conditioned to meet Sanitary District
requirements based on District comments.

Section 18.32.060 Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved domestic water system. Yes Will serve from Cal Water provided.

Section 18.32.070
A. Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas (if required), electric, telephone and
cablevision facilities. All utilities within the
subdivision and along peripheral streets shall be
placed underground in accordance with Chapters

14.20 and 14.24, of this code, except those facilities
exempted by the Public Utilities Commission
regulations. Undergrounding shall be required for
overhead lines on both sides of peripheral streets.

B. For subdivisions of five or more parcels, the
subdivider may request that the undergrounding
requirement along peripheral streets be waived by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the
undergrounding. The amount of fee shall be
determined by the City Engineer and shall be one-half
of the normal cost of undergrounding existing utilities on residential streets. The requirement for
undergrounding or the acceptance of an in-lieu-ofundergrounding fee shall be made a condition of approval of the tentative map.

C. For subdivision of five or more parcels the developer may appeal the undergrounding requirement along
peripheral streets to the City Council. Such appeal
shall be in accordance with Section 18.20.070 of this
title. The appeal shall be accompanied by an estimate
from each utility company for the approximate cost
per lineal foot and total cost to underground its
facilities along the peripheral street.

The developer shall pay all fees as may be charged by
each utility company to make the required estimate.

D. The City Council or City Engineer, as the case may be, may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the
undergrounding of existing facilities along peripheral
streets. The amount of fee shall not be less than the
amount established by the City Engineer for the
normal cost of undergrounding of existing utilities
along residential streets.

E. In-lieu fees shall be deposited in a special
undergrounding account to be used as approved by
the City Council for future undergrounding of
utilities throughout the City.

Yes
Undergrounding of utilities is proposed, to the
extent feasible. Project is conditioned to comply
with Public Works requirements for new utility
lines.

825
CC 07/01/2025
825 of 1130
Section 18.32.110
A. The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required, pursuant to Chapter 18.12 of this title,
shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivision.

B. Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and
configuration to permit orientation of a structure in
an east-west alignment for southern exposure.

C. Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and
configuration to permit orientation of a structure to
take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.

D. In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the design of a subdivision,
consideration shall be given to local climate, to
contour, to configuration of the parcel to be divided,
and to other design and improvement requirements,
and such provision shall not result in reducing
allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which
may be occupied by a building or structure under
applicable planning and zoning in force at the time
the tentative map is filed.

E. The requirements of this section do not apply to
condominium projects or stock cooperatives which
consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing
building when no new structures are added.

F. For the purpose of this section, "feasible" means
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological
factors.

Yes Buildings are oriented in the east-west
alignment to the extent feasible.

Section 18.32.120 (A)
The subdivision shall abut upon or have an approved
access to a public street. Each unit or lot within the
subdivision shall have an approved access to a public or private street. Flag lot access shall be a minimum of twenty feet in width unless approved by the City Engineer.

Yes
Proposed subdivision provides access to public
street (Stevens Creek Boulevard) and each
proposed unit has access to a public or private
street.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Environmental Regulation Ordinance (CMC Title 17) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 17.04
Section 17.04.030 (B)
(1)
Compliance with the requirements shall be demonstrated
for all residential projects involving the development of four or more residential units, through submittal and
implementation of a construction management plan and/or permit plans, as applicable, prior to issuance of an approval to the satisfaction of the City.

Yes, as
Conditioned
Draft construction management plan provided.

Project will be conditioned to meet all
applicable requirements of Title 17.

Section 17.04.040 (B)
(1)
The following standard environmental protection
technical reports are subject to third-party peer review under the direction of the City at the applicant’s cost, prior to the approval of the project.

Retain the services of a qualified environmental consultant with experience preparing Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) to prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standards on Environmental Site Assessments,
ASTM E 1527-13 (ASTM 1527-13) and in accordance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations 312), published November
2005, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced.

The goal of an ASTM Phase I ESA is to evaluate site
history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and former uses of surrounding properties to identify the potential presence of Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs) as defined in ASTM E
1527-13, associated with the site. If the Phase I ESA does not identify any RECs, then no further action is needed. If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared as described in Section B.2.

Yes, as
Conditioned
The project has been peer reviewed for
compliance with the City’s requirements and
recommended conditions of approval have
been incorporated into the proposed
resolutions.

Section 17.04.040 (C)
Project applicants shall prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which shall include a comparison of
existing VMT and project-generated VMT, for review and
approval prior to project approval, indicating that the project meets the standards in Section 17.08.040 (Vehicle Yes VMT memo provided and peer reviewed.

826
CC 07/01/2025
826 of 1130
Miles Traveled (VMT) Standards).

Section 17.04.040 (D)
The project applicant shall provide a vibration study to determine vibration levels due to construction to the City, prior to approval of the project, when the following
activities would occur within the screening distance to buildings or structures:
• pile driving within 100 feet,
• vibratory roller within 25 feet, or
• other heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer) within 15
feet;
For historical structures:
• pile driving within 135 feet,
• vibratory roller within 40 feet, or
• other heavy equipment within 20 feet
If vibration levels due to construction activities exceeds 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) at nearby buildings or structures, or 0.12 in/sec PPV at
historical structures, the project shall implement the
following alternative methods/equipment:
a. For pile driving, one of the following options shall be used: caisson drilling (drilled piles), vibratory pile
drivers, oscillating or rotating pile installation
methods, or jetting or partial jetting of piles into
place using a water injection at the tip of the pile.
b. For paving, use a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller.
c. For grading and earthwork activities, off-road
equipment that shall be limited to 100 horsepower or
less.

Yes
Per the applicant’s acoustic study, none of the
activities listed are proposed within the
screening distances for the project and potential
construction vibration levels will meet City
standards.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Building and Construction Regulation Ordinance (CMC Title 16) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Section 16.08.200 (E)

3. All swales or ditches on drainage terraces shall be
graded to provide suitable drainage and designed to
prevent erosion, including a suitable lining as
specified by the Director.

4. Drainage across lot lines caused by grading is
prohibited unless storm drain easements are provided.

Yes To be completed in accordance with Public
Works’ conditions of approval.

Chapter 16.58 Standards
Section 16.58.230
Greater than 9 Residential Single Family and Multi-Family homes (Verified by a Third Party GPR or LEED
certification as applicable
Alternate Reference Standard: See Section 101.10.2):
• GPR certified at minimum 50 points or
• LEED Silver or
• Alternate Reference Standard per Section 101.10.2
Yes, as
Conditioned
The project will comply with the Green Point
Rated (GPR) requirements and design will be
subject to peer review at time of Building Permit
review.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Landscape Ordinance (CMC Title 14) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 14.18 Standards

827
CC 07/01/2025
827 of 1130
Section 14.18.110 (A)
An application request to remove a mature specimen tree with a single-trunk DBH of twelve inches to twenty-four inches (multi-trunk twenty-four to forty-eight inches
DBH), shall provide the following:
a. A drawing outlining the location of the tree(s) and
proposed tree replacements.
b. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be
removed.
c. Signature of the property owner and/or
homeowner’s association (where applicable) with
proof of a vote of the homeowner’s association;
d. Permit fee, where applicable.

An application request to remove a heritage tree, privacy planting tree, approved development tree, or mature
specimen tree with single-trunk DBH greater than twentyfour inches or multi-trunk greater than forty-eight inches DBH, require the following in addition to application
requirements a. through d. listed above:
a. Photograph(s) of the tree(s).
b. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
c. Notice and posting per Section 14.18.130.

Other information deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development to evaluate the tree removal
request.

Yes Replacement trees provided on site.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Parks Ordinance (CMC Title 13) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 13.08 Standards
Section 13.08.050 (A) -
(E)
Where dedication of a park or recreational facility is
required pursuant to this Chapter, land shall be dedicated per the formula below.

Park land dedication (in acres) = (Average number of
persons/DU) x (Park Acreage Standard) x (Number of
Dwelling Units)
The Park Acreage Standard is three acres of property for each one thousand persons.

Table 13.08.050 indicates the average park land dedication required per dwelling unit based on development density per the formula above (Section 13.08.050.A).

Average number of persons/DU shall be determined
pursuant to Table 13.08.050.

The number of dwelling units is calculated consistent with Section 13.08.090.

Yes In-lieu fee payment requested.

Cupertino Housing Mitigation Manual
Reference Housing Mitigation Manual Requirement Consistent? City Comment Section 2.3.1 When a development provides Ownership Below-MarketRate (BMR) units, the affordability requirements for units shall be as follows:

1. Fifty percent (50%) of BMR units as median-income and fifty percent (50%) as moderate-income.

Yes
Six median and six moderate income units
provided.

Section 2.3.4 (A) BMR units shall 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.

Yes
Proposed BMR units are comparable to market
rate units.

Section 2.3.4 (D) The BMR units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project. Yes BMR units dispersed throughout project.

Section 4.3 New ownership projects with five or more units or lots shall provide at least 20% of the units or lots as BMR
ownership units or lots per Section 2.3
Yes
12 BMR units proposed.

828
CC 07/01/2025
828 of 1130
20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Townhomes Project
CEQA Exemption
City of Cupertino
Prepared for:

City of Cupertino
Contact: Emi Sugiyama, Associate Planner
City of Cupertino | Planning Division
10300 Torre Avenue | Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3205
[email protected]
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Vivian Kha, Associate II
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400 | Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
June 2025
829
CC 07/01/2025
829 of 1130
830
CC 07/01/2025
830 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Table of Contents

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION...................................................................................................................5

1.2 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS .............................................................6

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION............................................................................................................................7

2.2 PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................................................................7

2.3 LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS............................................................................................12

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT ...........................................................................................................................14

3. EXEMPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(A): GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY.......................24

3.2 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(B): PROJECT LOCATION, SIZE, AND CONTEXT ............................25

3.3 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(C): ENDANGERED, RARE, OR THREATENED SPECIES .................25

3.4 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(D): TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY, OR WATER QUALITY ............29

3.5 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(E): UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ..........................................53

4. EXCEPTIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 57

4.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(A): LOCATION..........................................................................57

4.2 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(B): CUMULATIVE IMPACT........................................................57

4.3 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(C): SIGNIFICANT EFFECT .........................................................58

4.4 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(D): SCENIC HIGHWAYS ............................................................58

4.5 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(E): HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES ................................................58

4.6 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(F): HISTORICAL RESOURCES....................................................60

5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 65

6. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................................ 67 CITY OF CUPERTINO ..........................................................................................................................................67 PLACEWORKS ....................................................................................................................................................67 831
CC 07/01/2025
831 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Table of Contents
PlaceWorks Page 4
Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map....................................................................................................................8 Figure 2-2 Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings.......................................................................................9 Figure 2-3 Proposed Site Plan..............................................................................................................................15 Tables
Table 3-1 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................................................34 Table 3-2 Noise Levels at Property Lines............................................................................................................36 Table 3-3 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ..........................................................................................37 Table 3-4 Construction Emissions.......................................................................................................................41 Table 3-5 Operational Emissions........................................................................................................................42 Table 3-6 Health Risk Impacts to MEIs...............................................................................................................44 Table 3-7 Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix............................................................................47 Appendices
Appendix A Biological Assessment
Appendix B Environmental Site Assessments
Appendix C Transportation Analysis
Appendix D Preliminary Arborist Report
Appendix E Noise Assessment
Appendix F Air Quality Assessment

SOURCES
All documents cited in this report and used in its preparation are hereby incorporated by reference into this document. Copies of documents referenced herein are available for review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. 832
CC 07/01/2025
832 of 1130

1. Introduction
This section describes the standards for determining a significant effect on the environment from construction and operation of the proposed 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Townhomes Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, this section describes the standards in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 17.04, Cupertino Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, that apply to all projects in Cupertino.

1.1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Article 19 (Categorical Exemptions) of the CEQA Guidelines includes, as required by CEQA Section 21084 (List of Exempt Classes of Projects; Projects Damaging Scenic Resources), a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. This document has been prepared to demonstrate CEQA compliance as it pertains to the redevelopment of the existing commercial development on the project site into the proposed 59-unit townhome development, herein referred to as the proposed project. This document also provides information to decision makers regarding a finding that the proposed project is exempt under CEQA.

This document describes how the proposed project qualifies for a Class 32 CEQA Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects), which requires that:
(a) The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as the applicable Zoning designations and regulations; (b) The proposed project would occur within the city limits on a site of less than 5 acres in size that is substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) The proposed project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and
(e) The project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

In addition, this document demonstrates that none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions apply pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions), which are based on the following:
(a) The project is not located within a sensitive environment; (b) There would be no cumulative impacts;
(c) There would be no significant effects on the environment due to an unusual circumstance; (d) There would be no impacts to a scenic highway;
833
CC 07/01/2025
833 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

1. Introduction
PlaceWorks Page 6
(e) The project site is not located on a hazardous waste site; and (f) There would be no impacts to historical resources.

1.2 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the standards identified in Section 1.1, Categorical Exemption, all projects in Cupertino are required to comply with the CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements.

Pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.030(A), these requirements apply to every project in the city. Pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.030(B)(1), because the proposed residential townhome project has more than four units, compliance must be demonstrated through submittal and implementation of a construction management plan and/or permit plans, as applicable, prior to issuance of an approval, to the satisfaction of the City. Pursuant to CMC Chapter 17.04, development projects must submit technical reports for air quality, hazardous materials, vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), and construction vibration. These reports are subject to peer review by the City’s third-party reviewers. This chapter of the CMC also includes nine permit submittal requirements:

1. Air Quality

2. Hazardous Materials

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

4. Biologic Resources

5. Cultural Resources

6. Hydrology and Water Quality

7. Noise and Vibration

8. Paleontological Resources

9. Utilities and Service Systems
834
CC 07/01/2025
834 of 1130

2. Project Description

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
The project site is in the city of Cupertino, approximately 38 miles southwest of San Francisco. Cupertino is on the western edge of Santa Clara County and west of the city of San Jose, south of the city of Sunnyvale, and north of the city of Los Gatos. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280) via De Anza Boulevard to the north and Highway 85 from Stevens Creek Boulevard to the west. See Figure 2-1, Regional and Vicinity Map.

2.2 PROJECT SITE

2.2.1 Location
The 2.97-acre project site at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard1 is in the central region of the city, near the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way. The project site is in a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Priority Development Area (PDA)2 and in a Transit Priority Area (TPA),
3 as defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). As shown on Figure 2-2, Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings, the project site is in a built-up and urbanized area adjacent to the Cupertino Crossroads Shopping Center, with commercial uses to the north and east, single-family residences to the south, William Faria Elementary School to the southwest, and religious uses to the west. The project site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, a commercial building and surface parking lot to the east, residences to the south, and the Union Church of Cupertino and Christian Righteousness Education Center Preschool building to the west.
1 Addresses for the project site include 20770, 20830, 20840, and 20850 Stevens Creen Boulevard, but for the purposes of this document, a single address (20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard) is used to represent the entire project site. 2 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, updated March 22, 2023, Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050), https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area2050, accessed December 27, 2024. 3 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, updated March 22, 2023, Transit Priority Areas (2021), https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5, accessed December 27, 2024.
835
CC 07/01/2025
835 of 1130
Wilson
Park
Memorial Park
Library
Field
Regnart Creek
N
Ste
l
ling
Rd S Stelling Rd
Bubb Rd
Mcclellan Rd
N Blaney Ave
S De Anza Blvd
S Blaney Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
N De Anza Blvd
85 Figure 2-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI, 2025; City of Cupertino, 2025; PlaceWorks, 2025.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION 0 0.05 0.1 0.2
Miles

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA
CRUZ
COUNTY
Project Site
City Boundary
County Boundaries
Railroad
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
836
CC 07/01/2025
836 of 1130
Stevens Creek Blvd
Figure 2-2
Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings
Source: Google Maps, 2025; City of Cupertino, 2025; PlaceWorks, 2025.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION 0 0.01 0.02
Miles
Project Site
Institutional
(School)
Institutional
(Church)
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
837
CC 07/01/2025
837 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 10
Sensitive receptors include places with people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution, noise, or environmental contaminants. These sites can include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, hotels, senior housing, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. Sensitive receptors within

0.25 miles (1,320 feet)4 of the project site include the following:
 Single-family residences that share a property line with the project site to the south;  Church and preschool buildings approximately 0.01 miles (53 feet) immediately west and 0.13 miles (690 feet) to the northwest;
 A school facility (William Faria Elementary School) approximately 0.04 miles (210 feet) to the southwest;
 A day care facility (Happy Days Child Development Center) approximately 0.12 miles (634 feet) to the northeast; and
 A medical building (chiropractor) and residential single-family units approximately 0.06 miles (316 feet) to the west.

2.2.2 Existing Site Conditions
As shown on Figure 2-2, the project site is currently developed with three commercial buildings. The project site also currently includes portions of a shared parking lot and ornamental landscaping associated with the commercial businesses.

The project site is relatively flat with an elevation of around 263 feet above mean sea level.5 The surficial
geology consists of late Pleistocene older surficial sediments, which is described as older alluvial terrace gravel, sand, and clay, undeformed.6 No paleontological resources have been identified on the project site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils indicates that the overall city, including the project site, could contain paleontological resources.7 Unique geological features are not common in Cupertino. The geology and soils on the project site are common throughout the city and region and are not considered unique.
4 This distance is consistent with CEQA Guidelines topic Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which asks “Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school?” 5 Roux Associates Inc., April 19, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 6 United States Geological Survey and Association of American State Geologists, 2007, Geologic map of the Cupertino and San Jose West quadrangles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_83442.htm, accessed December 27, 2024. 7 City of Cupertino, April 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix G, General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental Assessment, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/General-Plan/General-Plan-Community-Vision, accessed December 27, 2024. 838
CC 07/01/2025
838 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

Pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.040(B)(1) and (B)(2), the project applicant prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA),
8 a limited Phase II ESA,9 and an additional Phase II ESA,10 which were subject to a third-party peer review on behalf of the City. The project site was used for agricultural purposes as orchards from 1939 through the late 1960s and was improved with buildings between the early 1960s and late 1990s, until the project site was developed with the three existing commercial buildings. Buildings on the site included a post office from 1968 through the 1990s and as various restaurants, bakeries, and food stores between 1971 and 2020, and the current Staples since 2010.11 The Phase I and II ESAs did not reveal evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), controlled RECs, and/or historical RECs at the project site; however, there was one organochlorine pesticide in exceedance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board residential environmental screening level for Technical Chlordane, 12 which is an insecticide
applied on agricultural crops and livestock and on building foundations between 1947 through 1978.

Neither the Phase I or II ESAs evaluated the likelihood of the on-site buildings to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paint (LBP). Therefore, due to the age of the existing buildings that were built around 1963, they are conservatively assumed to contain ACMs and/or LBPs, which were unregulated in construction until the early 1970s.

The existing buildings on the project site are not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places13 or the list of California Historical resources,14 nor are they associated with significant cultural events, persons in California’s past, and do not have any distinctive historical characteristics, and as such do not have any qualifying historical value.
8 Roux Associates Inc., April 19, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 9 Roux Associates Inc., April 19, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 10 Roux Associates Inc., May 2, 2025, Additional Phase II Investigation, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 11 Roux Associates Inc., April 19, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 12 Roux Associates Inc., June 4, 2024, Limited Phase II Investigation, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 13 National Park Service, updated July 10, 2024, National Register of Historic Places, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table, accessed December 27, 2024. 14 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2024, California Historical Resources, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=43, accessed December 27, 2024. 839
CC 07/01/2025
839 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 12
According to the Vegetation Map shown in the Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site is within the urban forest (i.e., trees in the city).15 The City recognizes that every tree on both public and private property is an important part of Cupertino’s urban forest and contributes significant economic, environmental, and aesthetic benefits of the community.16 Onsite landscaping includes 54 trees, all of which will be removed. All 54 trees qualify as protected development trees and will require approval of a tree removal permit prior to removal and replacement. 17 The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) but is not in a fire hazard severity zone as designated by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). It is approximately 1.7 miles northeast of a very high fire hazard severity zone in an LRA, and 2 miles east of lands that CAL FIRE designates as a high fire hazard severity zone in a State Responsibility Area (SRA).18 The project site is roughly 1.2 miles northeast of a wildland-urban interface (WUI), which is an area of transition between wildland (unoccupied land) and land with human development (occupied land).19

2.3 LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The project site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 359-08-025, 359-08-026, 359-08-027, and 359-08-028 (partial). The project application was filed pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, commonly referred to by its legislative number, Senate Bill (SB) 330, which vests the standards that are in place at the time a “preliminary application” for a housing project is submitted and prevents jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing new design standards on housing projects that are not objective. As such, the proposed project is subject to the regulations in place at the time the project’s preliminary application was submitted on January 29, 2024. While the City was in the process of getting its Housing Element certified, the developer submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to SB 330, which vested a lower density for one of the parcels identified as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. 15 City of Cupertino, May 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element, Figure ES-1, Vegetation, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/General-Plan/General-Plan-Community-Vision, accessed December 27, 2024. 16 City of Cupertino, 2024, Tree Protection & Tree Removal, https://www.cupertino.gov/YourCity/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Residential-Planning/Tree-Protection-Removal, accessed December 27, 2024. 17 Hort Science Bartlett Consulting, updated December 19, 2024, Preliminary Arborist Report, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA (see Appendix D, Preliminary Arborist Report, of this document). 18 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2024, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/, accessed December 27, 2024. 19 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, updated December 2, 2022, Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed December 27, 2024.
840
CC 07/01/2025
840 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

The project is within the Heart of the City Special Area with a Commercial/Office/Residential (with a residential density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre) General Plan land use designation, and the Planned Development with General Commercial with Residential (P(CG,RES)) zoning district at the time of application. The Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation allows primarily commercial and office uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two uses.20 The Heart of the City Specific Plan contemplates mixed-use development with a primary focus on providing commercial uses that serve the public with frontages of buildings along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Specific Plan allows for fully residential development through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, which has been included in the proposed project’s scope. The applicable standards in the General Plan allow for a maximum residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre and a maximum building height of 45 feet on the project site.

The type of use allowed on the project site is General Commercial with Residential (P(CG,RES)), which allows for residential development. All planned development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter code "P" followed by a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planned development zoning district. As described in CMC Section 19.80.010, Purpose, the planned development zoning district is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment in the city that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of the considerations made for accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. The planned development zoning district is intended to:
 Encourage variety in the development pattern of the community.  Promote a more desirable living environment.
 Encourage creative approaches in land development.
 Provide a means of reducing the amount of improvements required in development through better design and land planning.
 Conserve natural features.
 Facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open space.  Encourage the creation of public or private common open space.

Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance (CMC Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus), the project applicant has requested the following, to the extent needed to comply with applicable objective standards:
20 City of Cupertino, May 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix A, Land Use Definitions, https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/2/departments/documents/community-development/planning/generalplan/current-gp-documents/cupgp_appendixa_2024update_9-25-2024.pdf, accessed December 27, 2024. 841
CC 07/01/2025
841 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 14
 A waiver or reduction of development standards to reduce the front, side, and rear setbacks for portions of the project.
 A waiver or reduction of development standards to increase the distance that architectural features (e.g., porches) may extend into the front setback from 4 to 9 feet for portions of the project.  A waiver or reduction of development standards to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40 to

42.1 percent.
 A reduction of vehicle parking standards pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p).  A waiver from the requirement to allow service pick-ups (e.g., trash and recycling) from the rear of the property.
 A waiver to increase the height limit from 45 feet to 45 feet, 10 inches.

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project applicant, SummerHill Homes LLC, is proposing the Stevens Creek Boulevard Townhomes Development Project that will involve the demolition of the three existing commercial buildings (totaling 38,735 square feet) and the construction of 59 townhome condominium units across eight three- and fourstory buildings. The following provides a detailed description of the proposed project, as shown on the conceptual site plan dated December 2024.21

2.4.1 Proposed Townhomes
The proposed townhomes will include 47 market-rate units and 12 below-market-rate units for a total of 59 units. There are several different townhome types proposed, including three- and four-bedroom units, ranging from 1,799 to 2,723 square feet. Each townhome will have three or four stories and will be 45 feet, 10 inches tall at the highest point, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk elevation along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Each townhome will include an average of 276 square feet per unit of private open space through a porch and decks, with some units incorporating a roof deck. The proposed project includes 118 off-street garage residential parking spaces and 11 uncovered guest parking spaces. Each unit will have an attached private two-car garage — side-by-side garages for 38 of the units and tandem garages for 21 of the units. Bicycle storage for residents is provided in the private garages, and bicycle racks for guests will be located around the site. The proposed project will provide 13,939 square feet of common usable open space. The site plan for the proposed project is included in Figure 2-3, Proposed Site Plan. 21 Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (Senate Bill [SB] 1214) limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during hearings to consider the proposal. 842
CC 07/01/2025
842 of 1130
Source: cbg Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners, R3 Studios, SDG Architects, Inc.

Figure 2-3
Proposed Site Plan

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2 0 8 4 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B O U L E V A R D T O W N H O M E S P R O J E C T C E Q A E X E M P T I O N

CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS 843
CC 07/01/2025
843 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 16

2.4.2 Landscaping
As shown on Figure 2-3, groundcover, shrubs, and trees will be planted throughout the site. Landscaping area for both hardscape (impervious) and green area (pervious) will be 101,430 and 29,356 square feet, respectively. Groundcovers and shrubs proposed on site will be of the Aeonium, Agave, Aloe, Anigozanthus, Arctostaphylos, Aristida, Bulbine, Calandrinia, Carpenteria, Chondropetalum, Cistus, Dianella, Dietes, Echeveria, Eremophila, Erigonum, Elymus, Euphorbia, Galvezia, Grevillea, Festuca, Hemerocallis, Hesperaloe, Heurchera, Juncus, Ligustrum, Lirope, Lomandra, Mimulus, Myrsine, Myrtus, Muhlenbergia, Nandina, Pennisetum, Pittosporum, Polystichum, Portulacaria, Prunus, Rhaphiolepis, Salvia, Senecio, Sesleria, Teucrium, Yucca, and Zauschneria genera.

The proposed project will plant 71 trees to replace the 54 existing trees to be removed. Trees proposed as part of the plant palette include those of the Acer, Agonis, Cercis, Chionanthus, Chitalpa, Lagerstroemia, Laurus, Melaleuca, Olea, Podocarpus, Prunus, Quercus, Rhaphiolepis, and Zelkova genera. Additionally, the proposed project will result in the planting of 29 callery pear (pyrus calleryana ‘chanticleer’) street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard, as required by the Cupertino Heart of the City Specific Plan.

2.4.3 Project Access and Circulation

2.4.3.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS
The proposed project will have a two-lane entrance/exit circulation pattern with two access points on Stevens Creek Boulevard, similar to the existing entrance/exit circulation pattern. The proposed emergency and garbage pick-up access route will be the same as the proposed vehicle access routes.

As stated in Section 2.2.1, Location, the project site is in a TPA and meets the standard for a major transit stop.22 The closest bus stop to the project site is approximately 0.06 miles (300 feet) away, on the east side of Siach Way on Stevenson Boulevard. The nearest major transit stop is 0.10 miles (537 feet) away, on the east side of South Stelling Road that provides stops with a bus frequency service interval of 15 to 20 minutes during the peak weekday commute periods along VTA bus route 23 and Rapid Transit 523. In addition, VTA 22 Public Resources Code Section 21099 states that a transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan, and Section 21064.3 states that a major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Note that Section 21064.3 was amended in 2024 and the change from 15 to 20 minutes went into effect on January 1, 2025; however, the Cupertino Municipal Code Section 17.08.010, Definitions, includes the now outdated standard of 15 minutes.
844
CC 07/01/2025
844 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

bus routes 25, 51, and 55 have a bus frequency of every 30 minutes or less.23 The project was reviewed by VTA and no improvements to the stops were requested.

2.4.3.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS
Pedestrian access to the townhomes will be available from two access points along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed development provides interior pedestrian circulation throughout the site and includes additional public access to the neighboring property through unfenced/ungated openings in the proposed fence line allowing for direct pedestrian passage into the neighboring commercial property. While the proposed project does not propose any new bicycle lanes or routes, the site is accessible from the existing Enhanced Bike Lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard.24

2.4.4 Utilities and Public Services Providers
The proposed utility infrastructure will connect to the existing water, sewer, storm drain system, and electricity network in the area, and will be served by an existing solid waste landfill.

2.4.4.1 WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION
The project site is in the Cupertino Water Service (CWS) area, leased to San José Water (SJW). Water service to the project site will be provided by the existing water line on Stevens Creek Boulevard from an 18-inch pipe. No new connections will be needed and are not proposed as part of the project.

The project incorporates a number of features meant to conserve water. The proposed landscaping will include native and/or adaptive and drought-resistant plant materials of similar water use grouped by hydrozones. The majority of plantings will be drought-tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees that, once established, will be adapted to a dry summer and intermittent rain in the winter season. All planting and irrigation will conform with the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses will be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which require water conservation and for new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. CMC Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.140 set forth the standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown in Table 101.10 in CMC Section 16.58.230, new construction of greater than nine homes is required to be Green Points Rated certified at a minimum of 50 points, Silver in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (City’s preferred method), or meet 23 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 24 City of Cupertino, June 2016, 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/ourcommunity/documents/cupertino-bicycle-transpor.pdf, accessed December 30, 2024. 845
CC 07/01/2025
845 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 18
an Alternate Reference Standard pursuant to Section 101.10.2.25 The proposed project will be conditioned to meet one of these mandatory standards at the Building Permit phase. The LEED rating system encourages water use reduction. Specifically, in LEED v4.1 for Building Design and Construction (BD+C), Outdoor Water Use Reduction, Indoor Water Use Reduction and Building-level Water Metering are prerequisites for achieving Water Efficiency (WE) credits.

2.4.4.2 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
The project site is located in the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) service area and wastewater will be treated at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control District (SJ/SCWPCD) plant. Wastewater generated at the project site will be collected by the existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main on Stevens Creek Boulevard.

2.4.4.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed project will result in 101,430 square feet of impervious surfaces coverage and 29,356 square feet of landscape, permeable pavement, and bioretention features. Compared to approximately 115,970 square feet of impervious surfaces coverage in existing conditions, this will be a decrease of 14,540 square feet of impervious surfaces. Stormwater will be treated on site as required to meet municipal stormwater permit requirements. The proposed project includes 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention areas that will hold and treat stormwater before it is discharged to an existing 27-inch public storm drain in Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed project is required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. The project also must comply with CMC Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, which is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to the City. 25 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best-inclass building strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to landfills. LEED-certified buildings are ranked in order of efficiency from Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum being the highest ranking with the greatest efficiency standard. LEED Silver certified buildings typically reduce is the third-highest ranking out of the four, with just being certified being the lowest and Gold and Platinum being the second highest. 846
CC 07/01/2025
846 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

2.4.4.4 SOLID WASTE SERVICES
Recology South Bay will provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and landscaping waste services to the project site.
26 Each garage will include designated space where waste and recycling bins must be stored. Residents will be responsible for placing bins on their driveway for pickup. All non-hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise agreement is taken to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill for processing. Under the agreement between the City and Recology, Recology also handles recyclable materials.

2.4.4.5 OTHER UTILITIES
Electric, cable, and telephone service is anticipated to connect to existing service lines along the south property line. A temporary overhead electric line will be installed to maintain power to the neighboring properties during construction. There are no existing overhead lines along the project frontage. New onsite utilities will be placed underground, with the exception of the temporary overhead electric line and two existing riser poles at the southern and western property lines and two pad-mounted transformers. The existing overhead electric lines running along the median of Stevens Creek Boulevard will remain. The proposed project will be fully electric and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) willsupply electricity to the project site with existing infrastructure.27 The source of electricity will be provided through a partnership between Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which provides a standard electricity offering from a 50 percent renewable portfolio,28 and PG&E. SVCE also offers a 100 percent renewable option that electricity customers can opt into. As previously stated in Section 2.4.4.1, Water Supply and Conservation, the proposed project will comply with the City’s adopted green building requirements, which includes the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) and is required to be Green Points Rated certified.

2.4.5 Demolition, Grading, and Construction
The project demolition, grading, and construction is assumed to take place over eight phases starting in 2027 and ending in 2028. The phasing would include buildings one through eight constructed in the following eight phases (see Figure 2-3, Proposed Site Plan, for building location):
 Phase 1 = Building 1 (2027)
 Phase 2 = Building 2 (2027)
 Phase 3 = Building 5 (2027)
 Phase 4 = Building 3 (2027)
26 City of Cupertino, October 15, 2024, Service Providers, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Directory/ServiceProviders, accessed January 2, 2025. 27 City of Cupertino, October 15, 2024, Service Providers, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Directory/ServiceProviders, accessed January 2, 2025. 28 Silicon Valley Clean Energy, 2022, It’s All About Choice, https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/, accessed January 2, 2025.
 Phase 5 = Building 6 (2028)
 Phase 6 = Building 4 (2028)
 Phase 7 = Building 7 (2028)
 Phase 8 = Building 8 (2028)
847
CC 07/01/2025
847 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

The project applicant proposes to demolish the three existing buildings and remove the existing vegetation and 54 trees on the project site, which would also occur as part of Phase 1.

Demolition and construction work will be conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, as provided for in CMC Section 10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition. Demolition and construction is not permitted on weekends or holidays for sites within 750 feet of other residential properties.29 Demolition debris will be off-hauled for disposal in accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance.30 Preliminary grading plans show that there will be approximately 2,150 cubic yards of cut (excavated soil exported from the site) and 4,600 cubic yards of fill (clean soil imported to the site) for a net 2,450 cubic yards of fill to be imported to the project site.

Pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(B), the excavated soils would be subject to a City-approved Soil Management Plan (SMP) that outlines procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for offsite disposal or onsite re-use, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material. 31 Typical equipment to be used for demolition and site preparation could include excavators, hydraulic breakers, skid steer loaders, graders, rubber-tired dozers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks, as well as smaller equipment, such as jackhammers, pneumatic tools, and saws.

No pile driving, rock blasting, or crushing will occur during the construction phase. Typical equipment to be used during construction of the project will include a backhoe, crane, aerial lifts, generator, diesel pump, dumpers, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, rollers, pavers, etc.).

During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials will be staged and stored on a centrally located portion of the project site when practical. During Phases 1 through 4, construction staging would be located near Stevens Creek Boulevard on the east side of the site. Staging would remain on the east side of the site adjacent to the parking area to the east and would generally remain in this area through Phases 5 through 8 until construction is complete. The construction staging would be reduced in size and equipment needs as the site is built out. The project applicant would be conditioned to restrict any longterm staging of equipment from around the perimeter of the site adjacent to existing residential uses. No staging will occur in the public right-of-way. The construction site and staging areas will be clearly marked, and construction fencing will be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. A combination of onand off-site parking facilities for construction workers will be identified during demolition, grading, and construction.
29 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control, Section

10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition. 30 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. 31 Roux Associates Inc., May 2, 2025, Additional Phase II Investigation, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document). 848
CC 07/01/2025
848 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description

2.4.6 Required Permits and Approvals
Following approval of the CEQA Categorical Exemption, Streamlined Review, and the approval of the proposed project by the City Council, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City will be required for the proposed project:
 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
 Development Permit
 Use Permit
 Architectural and Site Approval Permit
 Tree Removal Permit
 Public Art or in-lieu fee determination
 Park Land Dedication or payment of in-lieu fee determination  Concessions or incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reductions of parking requirements pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law
In addition, permits for demolition, grading, and building, and the certificate of occupancy will be required from the City. Encroachment permits from the City will also be required for any work performed in the public right-of-way.

Other agencies that also have discretionary authority related to the project, such as PG&E, who will authorize the connection/reconnection of electric utilities, San José Water, who will authorize the installation of a water meter connection, and CSD, who will be responsible for authorizing the sanitary sewer line.
849
CC 07/01/2025
849 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

2. Project Description
PlaceWorks Page 22
This page has been intentionally left blank.
850
CC 07/01/2025
850 of 1130

3. Exemption
As stated in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this document, Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines includes a list of classes (1 through 33) of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. This document has been prepared to serve as the basis for compliance with CEQA as it pertains to the proposed project, and to demonstrate that the project qualifies for a CEQA Exemption as an Infill Development Project, consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 and 15300.2. Specifically, the information provided herein shows that:
 The proposed project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: Infill Development Projects) and, as a result, would not have a significant effect on the environment.  No exceptions to the infill exemption, as identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, apply to the proposed project.

This chapter is based in part on the following technical studies prepared for the project applicant:
 Live Oak Associates Inc., February 23, 2024, Drive By Survey for the property at the 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard project site in the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (see Appendix A, Biological Assessment, of this document).
 Roux Associates Inc., April 19, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document).
 Roux Associates Inc., June 4, 2024, Limited Phase II Investigation, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document).
 Roux Associates Inc., May 2, 2025, Additional Phase II Investigation, 20830-20850 and 20770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, California 95014 (see Appendix B, Environmental Site Assessments, of this document).
 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document).  Hort Science Bartlett Consulting, updated December 19, 2024, Preliminary Arborist Report, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA (see Appendix D, Preliminary Arborist Report, of this document).
 Salter Inc., February 13, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix E, Noise Assessment, of this document).
 Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., revised February 6, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Air Quality Assessment (see Appendix F, Air Quality Assessment, of this document). 851
CC 07/01/2025
851 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 24
These technical studies were peer reviewed by PlaceWorks and Baseline Environmental Consulting on behalf of the City of Cupertino.

3.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(A): GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING CONSISTENCY
For the reasons stated here, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as the applicable zoning designations and regulations at the time of project application and therefore meets the criteria for CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a).

3.1.1 General Plan
As described in Section 2.3, Land Use and Zoning Designations, the project site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential, which allows primarily commercial and/or office uses, secondarily residential uses, or a compatible combination of the these uses. There are no express prohibitions on any of these uses. The proposed project will result in the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and construction of 59 residential townhome units. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not introduce a new incompatible land use to the project site. The proposed project is within the density allowed for the project site.32 Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. In addition, the proposed building height of the project, 45 feet, 10 inches, is considered consistent with the 45-foot height limit allowed for the project site pursuant to CMC Chapter

19.56, Density Bonus, since the project includes the requisite percentage of affordable housing, which allows the project unlimited waivers from development standards.

3.1.2 Zoning
As described in Section 2.3, Land Use and Zoning Designations, the project site’s zoning district at the time of project application is Planned Development with General Commercial with Residential (P(CG,RES)), which allows for residential uses on the property. Therefore, the proposed project will not introduce a new incompatible use and will continue to be consistent with the zoning designation on the project site applicable at the time of project application.
32 A density of 25 units per acre is allowed on the project site, which would allow up to 74.25 units on the 2.97-acre project site. The 59 proposed units are within this allowance.
852
CC 07/01/2025
852 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.2 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(B): PROJECT LOCATION, SIZE,

AND CONTEXT
For the reasons stated here, the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses and therefore meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b).

The proposed project is within city limits on an approximately 2.97-acre site. The project site is surrounded by urban uses and paved public streets, including commercial uses, residential uses, a church, a preschool, and a school, as shown on Figure 2-2, Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings. The project site is centrally located in the city and within a PDA and TPA. Accordingly, the proposed project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b).

3.3 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(C): ENDANGERED, RARE, OR

THREATENED SPECIES
For the reasons stated here, which includes compliance with the standard condition of approval protecting nesting birds and glass and lighting standards to reduce bird mortality from windows, other specific glass features, and certain lighting elements listed herein, the project site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species and therefore meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c).

The project site and surrounding area are developed with urban uses. Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)33 habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area.” Property with this classification tends to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special-status plant and animal species on the project site or urbanized areas within a one-mile area surrounding the project site.34 There are no natural lands within a one-mile area of the project site. For these reasons, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

All landscaping on the project site, including the 54 existing trees, will be removed as a part of the proposed project. Migratory birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, may use vegetation, including existing trees, on or near the project site for nesting. The project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Specifically, the project 33 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories: forest, woodland, chaparral, shrubs, and herbaceous. 34 California Natural Diversity Database, 2025, CNDDB Maps and Data, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data, accessed February 14, 2025.
853
CC 07/01/2025
853 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 26
applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.05.050(D)(1) listed here, which will minimize potential impacts to nesting birds during tree removal and construction:

CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction. For all projects that involve removal of a tree (either protected or unprotected) or other vegetation suitable for nesting birds, or construction or ground-disturbing activities defined in CMC Section 17.04.020, the project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, when required to ensure the following measures are performed to avoid inadvertent take of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code when in active use:
a. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. If feasible, construction, grounddisturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities shall be completed before the start of the nesting season to help preclude nesting. The nesting season for most birds and raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction surveys (described below) are not required for construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities outside the nesting period.
b. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than seven days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities to identify any active nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100 feet of construction or tree removal activities. ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped. As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the nests as follows:

1. For projects that require the demolition or construction of one single-family residence, ground--disturbing activities affecting areas of up to 500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner, or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective measures. 854
CC 07/01/2025
854 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

2. For any other demolition, construction, and ground-disturbing activity or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction surveys.
c. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-disturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. d. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance, and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g., demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities.

In addition to protecting migratory birds, there are numerous bat species that are known to be in the Cupertino area, most of which are relatively common and are not considered special-status species. The CNDDB does not show any occurrences of special-status bats within the site vicinity or anywhere in Cupertino but does show records within several miles of Cupertino.35 The project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.05.050(D)(2) listed below, which will minimize potential impacts to roosting bats during tree removal and construction:
35 California Natural Diversity Database, 2025, CNDDB Maps and Data, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data, accessed February 14, 2025.
855
CC 07/01/2025
855 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 28
CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2), Avoid Special-Status Roosting Bats During Construction Permit Requirements
a. For all projects that involve demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting of an abandoned or vacant building or structure, where the property owner cannot show evidence to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino Building Inspector that the building or structure was appropriately sealed at the time the building or structure was vacated to prevent bats from roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys of the on-site buildings or structures prior to commencing any demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting activities. A building or structure is not appropriately sealed unless seal holes that are more than 0.5 inches in diameter or cracks that are 0.25 by 1.5 inches or larger are filled or closed with suitable material, such as caulking, putty, duct tape, self-expanding polyurethane foam, 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth, 0.5-inch or smaller welded wire mesh, installing tighter-fitting screen doors, or steel wool. b. The project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall include in the applicable construction documents, the following to ensure appropriate preconstruction surveys are performed and adequate avoidance provided for any special-status roosting bats, if encountered on the site. Preconstruction surveys shall:
i. Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or building demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting. Note that the preconstruction survey for roosting bats is required at any time of year since there is no defined bat roosting season as there is with nesting birds. ii. Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting.
iii. Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated, after which surveys can be stopped, unless construction activities are suspended for more than 7 consecutive days, at which point the surveys shall be reinitiated.
iv. If no special-status bats are found during the survey(s), then no additional measures are warranted.
c. Protective measures shall be included in the applicable construction documents and implemented prior to issuance of permits, if any special-status bat species are encountered or for any roosts detected within the existing structures, where individual bats could be inadvertently trapped and injured or killed during demolition unless passively evicted in advance of construction activities.

Protective measures shall include:
i. If no maternity roosts are detected, adult bats can be flushed out of the structure or tree cavity using a one-way eviction door placed over the exit location for a minimum 48-hour period prior to the time tree removal or building demolition is to commence. 856
CC 07/01/2025
856 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

ii. Confirmation by the qualified biologist that the one-way eviction door was effective, and that all bats have dispersed from the roost location, modifying any exclusion efforts to ensure individual bats have been successfully evicted in advance of initiating tree removal or building demolition.
iii. If a maternity roost is detected, and young are found roosting in a building identified for demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting, work shall be postponed until the young are flying free and are feeding on their own, as determined by the qualified biologist. iv. Once the qualified biologist has determined that any young bats can successfully function without the maternity roost, then the adults and young bats can be excluded from the structure to be demolished using the one-way eviction methods described above. v. Monitoring shall be provided by the qualified biologist as necessary to determine status of any roosting activity, success of any required bat exclusion, and status of any maternity roosting activity by bats, in the remote instance a maternity roost is encountered on the site.

Furthermore, the proposed applicant will be required to comply with CMC Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards, which establishes regulations to reduce bird mortality from windows, other specific glass features, and certain lighting elements that are known to increase the risk of bird collisions. No more than 10 percent of the surface area of the façade will be untreated glass. The proposed project will avoid the funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees towards a building façade, avoid!use of highly reflective glass or highly transparent glass, and not include skyways or walkways, balconies, freestanding walls, or building corners made of untreated glass or other transparent materials, or any other design elements that are untreated and through which trees, landscape areas, water features, or the sky are visible from the exterior or from one side of the transparent element to the other. All outdoor lighting will be fully shielded fixtures, directed downward to meet the particular need and away from adjacent properties and rights-ofway to avoid light trespass.

Accordingly, the proposed project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c).

3.4 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(D): TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR

QUALITY, OR WATER QUALITY
For the reasons stated here, which includes the standard condition of approval to maintain the commitment to be all electric as described herein, the proposed project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and therefore meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).
857
CC 07/01/2025
857 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 30

3.4.1 Traffic
The project site is in the central region of the city along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided by I-280 via De Anza Boulevard to the north, and by Highway 85 via Stevens Creek Boulevard to the west. Vehicular access to and from the project site on Stevens Creek Boulevard will be provided through two access points, similar to the existing entrance/exit circulation pattern.

The project site will continue to be accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The site is served by the existing Enhanced Bike Lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Public transit to the project site is provided by local municipal bus lines 23, 25, 51, 55, and Rapid 523 operated by the VTA with bus stops less than 0.25 miles to the east near the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saich Way.

3.4.1.1 CONSISTENCY WITH CIRCULATION SYSTEM PROGRAMS AND PLANS Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve VMT reductions. The proposed project is an infill development project within a Santa Clara VTA City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA36 and within a TPA37 that will result in a change in land use from commercial to residential in a portion of the city that has access to existing infrastructure and services.

Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with the Plan Bay Area.

Pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit access to and from the project site will not change from existing conditions. The proposed project will not increase the population at the project site such that it would result in a large number of vehicular trips (i.e., the existing commercial uses generate 216 net daily trips and the proposed project will generate approximately 209 net new daily trips to the project site) 38 and will not
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit facilities or cause a substantial increase in transit demand that cannot be accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity or alternative travel modes. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in changes to the City’s transportation and circulation system that could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
36 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, updated March 22, 2023, Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050), https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area2050, accessed December 27, 2024. 37 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, updated March 22, 2023, Transit Priority Areas (2021), https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5, accessed December 27, 2024.
38 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 858
CC 07/01/2025
858 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.4.1.2 VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED
The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s (formerly the Office of Planning and Research) Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,39 and the City’s White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino,40 provides guidance on evaluating transportation impacts for redevelopment projects on infill sites and projects that are consistent with the RTP/SCS.

According to these guiding documents, a project that generates less than 110 daily trips may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to CEQA. Under CMC Chapter

17.08, a project would be screened out from more detailed VMT analysis if the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating cumulative VMT is declining. Project screening may be used for projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
 Projects within 0.25-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop as defined by CEQA.
 Local-serving retail projects of up to 50,000 square feet.  Land use projects consisting of 100 percent affordable housing.

The closest bus stop to the project site is approximately 0.06 miles (300 feet) away, on the east side of Siach Way on Stevenson Boulevard. The nearest major transit stop is located 0.10 miles (537 feet) away, on the east side of South Stelling Road which provides stops with a bus frequency service interval of 15 to 20 minutes during the peak weekday commute periods along VTA bus route 23 and Rapid Transit 523. As previously described in Section 3.4.1.1, Consistency with Circulation System Programs and Plans, the project site is within a TPA. 41 Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one-half mile of frequent transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes. Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. Accordingly, development in a TPA demonstrates a cumulative decline of VMT in the city and region. Pursuant to the 39 Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly the Office of Planning and Research), December 2018, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 40 City of Cupertino, February 2021, White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino, Appendix E, Small Project Screening for SB 743. 41 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, updated March 22, 2023, Transit Priority Areas (2021), https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5, accessed December 27, 2024.
859
CC 07/01/2025
859 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 32
City’s Project Activity Map,42 the City is processing multiple applications for housing in the TPA. Therefore, these projects, along with the proposed project, demonstrate a cumulative decline in VMT. Furthermore, the proposed project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria of being within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop43 and declining cumulative VMT, and no VMT-related impacts would occur.

3.4.1.3 DESIGN FEATURE OR INCOMPATIBLE USE HAZARDS
The proposed internal roadways will be constructed to be 24 to 26 feet wide and the proposed driveways to be approximately 26 feet wide, which is consistent with the CMC roadway standards. Since the increase of the number of vehicle trips resulting from the proposed project will be minor, the proposed driveways are expected to operate acceptably during both peak hours. The speed limit along Stevens Creek Boulevard is 35 miles per hour (mph), for which the California Department of Transportation recommends a stopping sight distance of 300 feet. The proposed project will not include landscaping or signage along the project site frontage and entrances that will interfere with the corner triangles at the proposed driveways. There is no parking allowed along Stevens Creek Boulevard and there are no curves in the roadway that will affect sight distance.
44 Therefore, no significant hazards in the area will occur during operation.

During the construction period, the proposed project will result in temporary changes to existing transportation conditions. Temporary traffic will be generated by construction employees and construction activities, including haul trucks. As discussed in Section 2.4.5, Demolition, Grading, and Construction, during demolition and construction, vehicle, equipment, and materials will be staged and stored on a portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas will be clearly marked, and construction fencing will be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. Therefore, no significant hazards in the area will occur during the construction phase.
42 City of Cupertino, Major Projects, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/Major-Projects. 43 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 states that a major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Note that Section 21064.3 was amended in 2024 and the change from 15 to 20 minutes went into effect on January 1, 2025; however, the Cupertino Municipal Code Section 17.08.010, Definitions, includes the now outdated standard of 15 minutes. 44 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 860
CC 07/01/2025
860 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.4.1.4 EMERGENCY ACCESS
The proposed project will not alter the existing circulation pattern on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed internal roadways will be constructed to 24 to 26 feet wide, consistent with the CMC, and will provide emergency vehicles with sufficient space to access each of the residential units on-site. 45 Therefore,
the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access.

3.4.2 Noise
Pursuant to the CEQA Statute (Public Resources Code) Section 21085, for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, this section evaluates the noise from construction equipment, buildings, and vehicles.

The noise environment in the project vicinity is primarily characterized by vehicular traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north of the project site. Operations and activities from adjacent commercial, institutional, and residential uses also contribute to the existing noise environment in the project vicinity.

The closest existing noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are the adjacent single-family residences to the south and the adjacent preschool building to the west.

3.4.2.1 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Construction Impacts
As described in Section 2.4.5, Demolition, Grading, and Construction, construction activities will include the use of heavy equipment for demolition, grading, and construction and smaller equipment for construction, through completion of buildings and landscaping. Heavy trucks will travel to, from, and within the site hauling soil, equipment, and building materials. The noise associated with these activities could be generated over the entire project site.

Demolition and construction work will be conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, as provided for in CMC Section 10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition. Demolition and construction are not permitted on weekends or holidays for sites within 750 feet of other residential properties.

Demolition debris, including soil, will be off-hauled for disposal in accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance.46 45 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 46 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste.
861
CC 07/01/2025
861 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 34
As described in CMC Section 10.48.053, construction and demolition activities are exempt for the daytime noise standard of 60 dBA provided construction noise does not exceed 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the receptor’s receiving property line or no individual piece of construction equipment exceeds 87 dBA at 25 feet. Only one of these standards is required to be met. Based on the noise levels shown in Table 3-1, Construction Equipment Noise Levels, most construction equipment is expected to meet 80 dB. However, some types of equipment are expected to produce sound greater than 87 dBA at 25 feet.

TABLE 3-1 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment Reference Sound Level at 25 feet (dB)
Air Compressors 87
Cement and Mortar Mixers 91
Concrete/Industrial Saws 82
Excavators 76
Forklifts 89
Generator Sets 87
Graders 78
Paving Equipment 80
Rollers 85
Scrapers 86
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 81
Welders 79
Source: Salter, Inc., February 13, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix E, Noise Assessment, of this document).

As shown in Table 3-1, these include the cement mixers and forklifts, which will need to maintain a minimum distance of 30 feet and 20 feet, respectively, from all property lines to meet the criterion of 80 dB. These distances account for the acoustical shielding provided by the 9- to 10-foot-tall masonry walls along the west and south property lines between the project and adjacent development.

CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Sections 17.04.050(G)(1) and 17.04.050(G)(2) listed here, which will minimize impacts related to construction noise:

CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(1), Notice and Signage. At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or construction activities, because the project site is between 0.25 to 0.5 acres, the project applicant shall send notices shall be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 250 feet of the project site. The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that 862
CC 07/01/2025
862 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. The project applicant shall provide the City with evidence of mailing of the notice, upon request. Additionally, the at least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.

CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2), Manage Noise During Construction. a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager. Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to, temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During the entire active construction period, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits. b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase. c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.

The proposed project will be required to identify and implement noise-reduction measures for the cement mixers and forklifts pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) to reduce construction noise in compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase 863
CC 07/01/2025
863 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 36
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the CMC during the construction phase.

Operational Impact
The proposed project will include air-conditioning (AC) units located at-grade, adjacent to the residences to the south of the project site. This analysis conservatively assumes a cluster of AC units operating simultaneously in closest proximity to the west, south, and east property lines. Table 3-2, Noise Levels at Property Lines, shows the calculated noise levels generated by the proposed project at the property lines.

TABLE 3-2 NOISE LEVELS AT PROPERTY LINES
Noise Level at Property Line
Nonresidential
(East)
Residential
(South)
Nonresidential
(West)
Project-Generated 54 dB 41 dB 54 dB
Daytime Maximum Threshold (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) 65 dB 60 dB 65 dB Nighttime Maximum Threshold (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 55 dB 50 dB 55 dB Exceed Thresholds? No No No
Source: Salter Inc., February 13, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix E, Noise Assessment, of this document).

As indicated in Table 3-2, predicted noise levels will not exceed the daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels outlined in CMC Section 10.48.040, Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels. Prior to issuance of building permits for noise-generating equipment, including AC units, the City will evaluate plans to ensure that the equipment meets the City’s maximum noise levels, as outlined in CMC Section 10.48.040.

Therefore, the proposed project will not increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the CMC during the operational phase.

Furthermore, the proposed project is estimated to generate 209 net new trips to the project site. 47 The
addition of 209 net new vehicle trips is calculated to generate an increase of 2 decibels (dB) on Stevens Creek Boulevard.48 However, the existing noise level from traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard is 70 dB. This existing noise level is high enough that the project-generated traffic noise increase will not affect the overall noise level of Stevens Creek Boulevard traffic. Therefore, compared to the thousands of existing daily trips along Stevens Creek Boulevard, the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will not result in a significant traffic noise increase.
47 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 48 Salter Inc., February 13, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix E, Noise Assessment, of this document).
864
CC 07/01/2025
864 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.4.2.2 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
As previously stated, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the adjacent single-family residences to the south of the project site and the adjacent preschool building to the west. Because the closest single-family residences are approximately 15 feet from the shared southern property line, this discussion is based on impacts at this location. As described in Section 2.4.5, Demolition, Grading, and Construction, project construction might include activities such as the use of a backhoe, a crane, aerial lifts, a generator, a diesel pump, dumpers, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, rollers, pavers, etc.). Typical construction vibration levels at 25 feet are listed in Table 3-3, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. Estimated levels at the nearest adjacent structures (new residential structures and commercial buildings approximately 15 feet from the property line) are also shown.

TABLE 3-3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) PPV at 15 feet (in/sec) a Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.4518
Hydraulic Breaker 0.089 to 0.24 0.1915 to 0.5164
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.1915
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.1635
Excavator 0.089 0.1915
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0753
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0065
Crane, Forklift, Bobcat No significant vibration
Note:
a. Using a value of n = 1.5 per Federal Transit Administration recommendation, where “n” is the attenuation rate through the ground.

Source: Salter, Inc., February 13, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix E, Noise Assessment, of this document).

Based on the vibration levels shown in Table 3-3, most construction equipment is expected to meet the structural damage criteria of 0.50 peak particle velocity (PPV) for residential structures. If hydraulic breakers are required for project construction, it might result in vibration level exceedances at close distances to nearby structures. However, this type of equipment would not exceed the criterion of 0.50 PPV if a minimum distance of 15 feet from all property lines is maintained at all times while in use at the project site.

CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(3), which will minimize impacts related to construction vibration:
865
CC 07/01/2025
865 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 38
CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(3), Manage Vibrations During Construction. In the event pile driving is required, the project applicant shall:
a. Notify all vibration-sensitive receptors within 300 feet of the project site of the schedule 10 days prior to its commencement and include the contact information for the person responsible for responding to complaints on site.
b. The project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant or structural engineer, to prepare and implement a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan, which is subject to third-party peer review under the direction of the City at the applicant’s cost, for areas within 100 feet for pile driving, 25 feet for vibratory roller, or 15 feet for other heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer); and for historical structures: within 135 feet for pile driving, 40 feet for vibratory roller, or 20 feet for other heavy equipment. The plan shall include surveying the condition of existing structures; and determining the number, type, and location of vibration sensors and establish a vibration velocity limit (as determined based on a detailed review of the proposed building), method (including locations and instrumentation) for monitoring vibrations during construction, location of notices displaying the contact information for on-site coordination and complaints on site, and method for alerting responsible persons who have the authority to halt construction should limits be exceeded or damaged observed.
c. Submit final monitoring reports to the City upon completion of vibration related construction activities.
d. Conduct a post-survey on any structure where either monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or complaints that damage has occurred are received.
e. The project applicant shall be responsible for appropriate repairs as determined by the qualified acoustical consultant or structural engineer where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.

The proposed project will be required to prepare a Construction and Vibration Monitoring Plan pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(3) by a qualified acoustical consultant, which would ensure that no damage due to vibration from construction equipment would occur. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an increase in excessive ground-borne vibration.

3.4.2.3 AIRPORT NOISE
Because the project site is not within two miles of a private or public use airport, which is the standard for assessing noise impacts under CEQA, the proposed project will not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with the proximity of an airport. 866
CC 07/01/2025
866 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.4.3 Air Quality
The proposed project is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air District (Air District), formerly known as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Within the Air Basin, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The Air Basin is under State nonattainment status for ozone and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) standards. The Air Basin is classified as nonattainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and nonattainment for the federal 24-hour standard for fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5).49
As previously stated, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are at the adjacent singlefamily residences to the south and the adjacent preschool building to the west. There are additional sensitive receptors at further distances surrounding the site, including William Faria Elementary School to the southwest.

3.4.3.1 CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLANS
The applicable air quality plan is the Air District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy, which was adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy serves as a roadmap for the Air District to reduce air pollution and protect public health and the global climate.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes measures and programs to reduce emissions of fine particulates and toxic air contaminants. Additionally, the Regional Climate Protection Strategy identifies potential rules, control measures, and strategies that the Air District can pursue to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) throughout the Bay Area.

Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan is determined by whether or not the proposed project will result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts or hinder implementation of control measures (e.g., excessive parking or preclude extension of a transit lane or bicycle path). As indicated in the analysis that follows, the proposed project will not result in significant operational and construction-period emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan and will not conflict with any of the control measures identified in the Clean Air Plan as designed to bring the region into attainment.

Additionally, the proposed project is an infill development project that will increase housing within a TPA.

Therefore, the proposed project will not hinder or disrupt the implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.
49 Bay Area Air District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status,” https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/researchand-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status, accessed February 12, 2025. 867
CC 07/01/2025
867 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 40

3.4.3.2 CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE CRITERIA POLLUTANT As described previously, the Air Basin is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 air quality standards. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted by cumulative-plus-project emissions (the Air Basin), a project is cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the Air District’s emissions thresholds.

The Air District has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds would not generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the proposed project will result in emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and fine PM2.5.

CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) as listed here, which will minimize impacts from fugitive dust during construction:

CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), Control Fugitive Dust During Construction. Projects shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter, PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground-disturbing activities, and/or construction. The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit.

The Air District considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of the Air District’s best management practices. The current best management practices that are required to be implemented by the project applicant are listed herein:
868
CC 07/01/2025
868 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Cupertino regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

In addition, as discussed in Section 2.4.5, Demolition, Grading, and Construction, the proposed project will be conditioned to prepare and implement an SMP pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(B) that outlines procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for offsite disposal or onsite re-use, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material.

Table 3-4, Construction Emissions, shows the average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the proposed project.

TABLE 3-4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Total Construction Emissions (tons) 1.13 1.02 0.01 0.01 Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) 5.42 4.92 0.04 0.04 Air District Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Note: Modeling assumes compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), Control Fugitive Dust During Construction.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., revised February 6, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Air Quality Assessment (see Appendix F, Air Quality Assessment, of this document).
869
CC 07/01/2025
869 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 42
As indicated in Table 3-4, predicted average project construction emissions will not exceed the Air District’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants during the construction phase.

Operational Impacts
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on-road vehicles). Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants include industrial (stationary sources), manufacturing, and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. These types of major air pollutant emissions sources are not included as part of the proposed project.

As described in Section 2.4.4.5, Other Utilities, the project applicant has voluntarily committed to the project being fully electric, which will also be a condition of approval, and will not include stationary sources that emit toxic air contaminants or generate a significant amount of heavy-duty truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter).

Table 3-5, Operational Emissions, shows average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project.

TABLE 3-5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Annual Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.94 0.18 0.43 0.11 Existing Use Emissions (tons/year) 0.29 0.14 0.27 0.07
Net Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.65 0.04 0.16 0.04 Air District Thresholds (tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Daily Project Operational Emissions (pounds/day) 3.57 0.23 0.91 0.23 Air District Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Note: For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the emergency generator, estimated to be powered by 100 horsepower (HP) diesel engine, will be operated for testing and maintenance purposes.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., revised February 6, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Air Quality Assessment (see Appendix F, Air Quality Assessment, of this document).

As indicated in Table 3-5, operational emissions will not exceed the Air District’s significance thresholds.

Therefore, the proposed project will not result in cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants during the construction phase.
870
CC 07/01/2025
870 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO, called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State’s 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.

Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—to generate a significant CO impact. The proposed project will result in 209 net new daily vehicle trips.50 Thus, the proposed project will not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.51 The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase CO concentration at intersections.

3.4.3.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Project impacts related to increased health risk can occur by generating emissions of TACs and air pollutants.

Construction activity under the proposed project will generate dust and equipment exhaust that can affect nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed project will include a stationary source of air pollutants and TACs in the form of an emergency generator and will also generate some traffic consisting of mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles, which will produce TAC and air pollutant emissions.

CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(2), which will minimize impacts from construction exhaust:

CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(2), Control Construction Exhaust. Projects that disturb more than one-acre and are more than two months in duration, shall implement the following measures and the project applicant shall include them in the applicable construction document, prior to issuance of the first permit:
a. Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that is rated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Tier 4 or higher for equipment more than 25 horsepower. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Tier 4 interim emissions standard for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulations. Applicable construction documents shall 50 Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., September 26, 2024, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Transportation Analysis (see Appendix C, Transportation Analysis, of this document). 51 Bay Area Air District, revised 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 871
CC 07/01/2025
871 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 44
clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.
b. Ensure that the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
c. Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Health risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and by computing the Hazard Index for noncancer health risks. The project’s maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation. The cancer risk MEI is on the first floor of the single-family home southeast of the project site and the annual PM2.5 MEI is at the adjacent preschool west of the project site.

Table 3-6, Health Risk Impacts to MEIs, summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health Hazard Index for project-related activities. Note that much of the health risk impacts are from construction. Table 3-6 also shows cumulative health risk impacts52 at the sensitive receptors most affected by construction (i.e., the MEIs).

TABLE 3-6 HEALTH RISK IMPACTS TO MEIS

Cancer Risk
(per million)
a

Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)
a
Hazard Index
Project Maximum Residential Impacts – Maximum Cancer Risk Impact Project Construction 2.72 (infant) 0.07 <0.01
Project Operation (Emergency Generator) 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 Total/Maximum Project Impact 2.84 0.07 <0.01
Air District Recommended Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Project Maximum Preschool (Ages 2-5) Impacts – Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration Impact Project Construction 0.46 (child) 0.11 <0.01
Project Operation (Emergency Generator) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Total/Maximum Project Impact 0.47 0.11 <0.01
Air District Recommended Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
52 Cumulative health risk assessments look at all substantial sources of TACs located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area) that can affect sensitive receptors. These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by the Air District.
872
CC 07/01/2025
872 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

TABLE 3-6 HEALTH RISK IMPACTS TO MEIS

Cancer Risk
(per million)
a

Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)
a
Hazard Index
Cumulative Impacts
Stevens Creek Boulevard, Average Daily Trips 20,502 0.54 0.08 <0.01 Stelling Road, Average Daily Trips 14,912 0.17 0.02 <0.01 Target Store T-0323 (Facility ID #17616, Generator),
MEIs at 875 feet <0.01 - -
De Anza Shell (Facility ID #107071-1-1, Gas
Dispensing Facility), MEIs at 700 feet 1.33 - 0.07
Cumulative Total <4.89 0.21 <0.10
Air District Recommended Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Note: Modeling assumes compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), Control Fugitive Dust During Construction, and CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(2), Control Construction Exhaust.
a. The maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations occur at different locations and receptor types.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin Inc., revised February 6, 2025, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Air Quality Assessment (see Appendix F, Air Quality Assessment, of this document).

As shown in Table 3-6, the cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and Hazard Index do not exceed their respective Air District single- or cumulative-source significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

3.4.3.4 ODORS
During project construction, some odors may be created due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors will be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project will not include any activities or operations that will generate objectionable odors and once operational, the project will not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

3.4.3.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the proposed project contribution to the cumulative environmental impact associated with GHG emissions. Development of the proposed project will contribute to climate change through direct and indirect GHG emissions from the construction activities needed to implement the proposed project, which will generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions. 873
CC 07/01/2025
873 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 46
Construction Impacts
The Air District does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, which are one-time, short-term emissions and therefore will not significantly contribute to the long-term cumulative GHG emission impacts of the proposed project. Implementation of the Air District’s basic construction best management practices required pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) will reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, project construction impacts associated with GHG emissions will be reduced to the extent feasible, as required by the Air District.

Operational Impacts
The proposed project will generate a net increase of 209 daily weekday trips compared to existing on-site land uses. Because transportation emissions will generate the majority of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, this net increase in daily trips will not substantially increase GHG emissions in the city.

Additionally, the new buildings will be more energy efficient than the existing structures and will be built to achieve the latest Title 24 Building and Energy-Efficiency Standards.

The Air District has the following thresholds for land use projects in analyzing GHG emissions impacts; projects must include conditions listed under either Criterion A or B:

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the follow project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
874
CC 07/01/2025
874 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

As described herein, the proposed project will meet the conditions listed under Criterion B, for being consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction strategy. In addition, it will not include natural gas appliances or plumbing, or result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage, as previously explained. Other applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050. A consistency analysis with these plans is also presented herein.

Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions in the city’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation, land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.

A specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP 2.0 if it does not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. Project consistency with the adopted GHG reduction measures is shown in Table 3-7, Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix.

TABLE 3-7 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2
percent for residential and 10 percent for
commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will comply with the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards to reduce energy consumptions.

Measure BE-4 Require new residential and
commercial development to be all-electric at time of
construction.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will be fully electric.

Measure TR-1 Develop and implement an Active
Transportation Plan to achieve 15 percent of active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent
by 2040.

Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, while the proposed project does not propose any new bicycle lanes or routes, the site is accessible from the existing Enhanced Bike Lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard. As such, the proposed project will not conflict with the City’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Pedestrians will also have access to the site via the existing sidewalks that will connect to the pedestrian network surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will promote and will not obstruct these alternative modes of transportation. 875
CC 07/01/2025
875 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 48
TABLE 3-7 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure TR-2 Implement public and shared transit
programs to achieve 29 percent of public transit
mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040.

Consistent. The City is the party responsible for this measure. The closest bus stop to the project site is approximately 0.06 miles (317 feet) away, on the east side of Siach Way on Stevenson Boulevard, and is served by VTA bus routes 23, 25, 51, 55, and Rapid Transit 523.

Measure TR-3 Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
adoption to 35 percent for passenger vehicles and 20
percent for commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100
percent for all vehicles by 2040.

Consistent. The proposed project will result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the city that has access to existing transportation infrastructure and services, including the VTA bus routes 23, 25, 51, 55, and Rapid Transit 523. To encourage transition to electric vehicles (EVs), the proposed project will be required to install EV charging stations pursuant to the City’s code. The proposed project will be conditioned by the City to install six Level 2 EV Ready Circuits and six Level 1 EV Ready Circuits, one of each in each of the townhome units, and therefore will be consistent with this standard to increase this to the minimum of EVcapable charging spaces to comply with the voluntary Tier 2 standards of CALGreen, as required by the Air District.

Measure W-1 Implement SB 1383 requirements and
reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75
percent by 2025 and inorganic waste 35 percent by
2030 and reduce all waste 90 percent by 2040.

Consistent. The City is the party responsible for implementing this measure. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The proposed project will not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure W-2 Reduce overall waste disposed to
garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15
percent by 2035.

Consistent. The City is the party responsible for implementing this measure. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The proposed project will not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure W-3 Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled
organics products procurement requirements and
sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person
by through 2045.

Consistent. The City is the party responsible for implementing this measure. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The proposed project will not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure WW-2 Reduce per capita water
consumption 15 percent compared to 2019 levels by
2030 and maintain through 2040
Consistent. The proposed project will comply with Senate Bill (SB) X7-7, which requires California to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban percapita water use by 2020 and will implement best management practices for water conservation to achieve the City’s water conservation goals. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project incorporates low water-use groundcovers, shrubs, and trees throughout the project site.

All landscape zones will be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses will be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project will not conflict with implementation of this measure. 876
CC 07/01/2025
876 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

TABLE 3-7 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX Measure Consistency
Measure CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration through
tree planting by developing and implementing an
Urban Forest Management Plan.

Consistent. The City is the party responsible for this measure. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project will increase landscaping on-site. This will increase tree canopy over the buildings and hardscaped areas, reducing energy needed to cool the buildings. The proposed project will include 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention facilities that will hold and treat stormwater before dispersal to the City’s off-site storm drain infrastructure. Furthermore, the project will comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 and CMC Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, to ensure ongoing compliance with the City’s municipal stormwater and urban runoff requirements. The proposed project will not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Notes: Measures BE-2 and BE-3 apply to existing development and are not applicable. Measure TR-4 is a city measure to re-focus transportation infrastructure in the city that is not applicable on a project-level. Measure CS-2 is for open space projects that can sequester carbon dioxide (CO2), and therefore, is not directly applicable to the project.

Source: City of Cupertino, August 2022, City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0.

Development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP 2.0. The City ensures that the provisions of the Cupertino CAP 2.0 are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. Additionally, as previously stated, the proposed project will replace the older structures with newer, more energy-efficient structures that achieve the most recent California Building and Energy-Efficiency Standards and water-efficiency standards.

Furthermore, CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(C), which will minimize stormwater runoff:

CMC Section 17.04.050(C), Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Energy Use. The project applicant shall complete the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan – Development Project Consistency Checklist, for review and approval by the City Environment and Sustainability Department prior to issuance of the first permit, to demonstrate how the project is consistent with the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy.

Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with Cupertino CAP 2.0. 877
CC 07/01/2025
877 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 50
CARB’s Scoping Plan
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) outlines the State’s strategies to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the targets established under SB 32, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, and Executive Order (EO) B55-18. The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. CARB recently released the 2022 Scoping Plan to address measures to achieve the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewable Portfolio Standardsto 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy-efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, and black carbon emissions to 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creating a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the CAFE standards, and other early-action measures as necessary to ensure the State is on target to achieve the GHG emissions-reduction goals of SB 32, AB 32, and EO B-55-18. In addition, new buildings are required to comply with the current Building Energy-Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The Cupertino CAP 2.0 is consistent with the statewide GHG reduction strategy and therefore complying with the CAP 2.0 will ensure the proposed project complies with the CARB Scoping Plan. The project’s GHG emissions will be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since SB 32, AB 32, and EO B-55-18 were adopted.

Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS that identifies a sustainable vision for the Bay Area. To achieve the MTC/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area 2050 land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in PDAs. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per-capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The project site is in a Santa Clara VTA City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA and the proposed project is an infill development project that will result in an increase in 878
CC 07/01/2025
878 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

land use intensity in a portion of the city that has access to existing infrastructure and services, including transit service. Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050.

3.4.4 Water Quality

3.4.4.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The City, as a participant in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, which is regulated by the NPDES Program, is committed to reducing pollutants entering waterways. Below is a discussion of the proposed project’s compliance with water quality standards.

Construction Impacts
Because the proposed project is greater than one acre, it will be required to comply with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The proposed project will also be required to comply with the Regional Water Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), because it will create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The proposed project is required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2.4.5, Demolition, Grading, and Construction, the proposed project will be conditioned to prepare and implement an SMP pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(B) that outlines procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for offsite disposal or onsite re-use, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material. Compliance with applicable regulations, including the implementation of an SMP, will ensure that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to water quality during the construction period.

Operational Impacts
As stated previously, the proposed project will be required to comply with the MRP. Furthermore, stormwater from implementation of the proposed project will be directed to the existing stormwater system, in addition to being filtered through the 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention areas as described in Section 2.4.4.3, Stormwater Management. Therefore, the proposed project will continue to minimize pollutant runoff from the project site and will not result in adverse water quality impacts during operation. 879
CC 07/01/2025
879 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 52

3.4.4.2 GROUNDWATER
The proposed project will connect to the existing water lines on-site and will not use groundwater at the site. Additionally, as described in Section 2.4.4.3, Stormwater Management, the proposed project will include 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention areas, which will allow water to percolate into the groundwater basin below the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

3.4.4.3 DRAINAGE PATTERNS
Stormwater runoff from the project site is channeled into a storm drain under Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Stormwater from Cupertino is eventually discharged into San Francisco Bay. As described in Section 2.4.4.3, Stormwater Management, the proposed project includes 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention areas and will result in a decrease of 14,540 square feet of impervious surfaces. The proposed project will be required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.

Additionally, CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(F), which will minimize stormwater runoff:

CMC Section 17.04.050(F), Control Stormwater Runoff Contamination. The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. All identified stormwater runoff control measures shall be included in the applicable construction documents.

CMC Chapter 9.18 is intended to provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the NPDES permit, which requires erosion and siltation-control measures, issued to the City. Therefore, compliance with the CMC and Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements will ensure that the proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.

3.4.4.4 INUNDATION
The project site is not in a 100-year flood zone or special flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, the project site is also not in an area subject to tsunami, seiche, or dam failure inundation. Therefore, the proposed project will not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
880
CC 07/01/2025
880 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

3.5 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332(E): UTILITIES AND PUBLIC

SERVICES
For the following reasons, the project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and therefore meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e).

The project site is in an urban area already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., stormwater, water, wastewater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., police and fire).

3.5.1 Stormwater
The project site is served by existing stormwater sewer systems, and the proposed project will not require additional or modified stormwater sewer systems. As described in Section 2.4.4.3, Stormwater Management, the proposed project will also implement 3,847 square feet of on-site bioretention areas to reduce or slow stormwater runoff and will result in a decrease of 14,540 square feet of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the proposed project will reduce demand to stormwater infrastructure when compared to existing conditions and will not result in significant impacts to stormwater utilities.

3.5.2 Water
The project site is in the CWS service area. Water service to the project site will be provided by the existing water line on Stevens Creek Boulevard. No new connections will be needed and are not proposed as part of the proposed project. As shown in the water supply evaluation included in Appendix G, Environmental Assessment, of the Cupertino General Plan, which includes the project site being developed at a greater density (65 dwelling units per acre) than what is proposed (25 dwelling units per acre), CWS predicts that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet citywide demand through year 2040 during normal, singledry, and multiple-dry years.53 Furthermore, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(I)(2), which will ensure adequate water supply and infrastructure:

CMC Section 17.04.050(I)(2), Ensure Adequate Water Supply and Infrastructure. The project applicant shall obtain written approval from the appropriate water service provider for water connections, service capability, and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers, prior to issuance of the first permit.
53 City of Cupertino, April 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix G, General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental Assessment, Table 4.15-3, Cal Water PAS Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY) https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/General-Plan/General-PlanCommunity-Vision, accessed December 27, 2024. 881
CC 07/01/2025
881 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 54
This will ensure that the existing system can support the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to water utilities.

3.5.3 Wastewater
The project site is in the CSD service area, and wastewater will be treated at the SJ/SCWPCP. Wastewater generated by the proposed project will be collected by the existing sanitary sewer main along Stevens Creek Boulevard. As shown in the wastewater evaluation included in Appendix G, Environmental Assessment, of the Cupertino General Plan, which includes the project site being developed at a great density (65 dwelling units per acre) than what is proposed (25 dwelling units per acre), CSD has sufficient capacity for buildout of the General Plan. As shown, the increase in wastewater demand due to future potential development from the General Plan is estimated to be approximately 0.41 million gallons per day (mgd). As of 2020, the SJ/SCWPCP is treating 110 mgd with a permitted capacity of 167 mgd. Therefore, the wastewater treatment facility has a residual capacity of 57 mgd and the addition of 0.41 mgd from implementation of the General Plan buildout is only 0.7 percent of the residual capacity. 54 The project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Section

17.04.050(I)(1), which will minimize potential impacts to the sewer system:

CMC Section 17.04.050(I)(1), Manage Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration to Sewer System. Project applicants shall implement the following measures to reduce wastewater flow:
a. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) that the project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:
i. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows, or ii. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
b. The project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the current generation rates used by the CSD unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. 54 City of Cupertino, April 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix G, General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental Assessment, Table 4.15-6, Increase in Wastewater Demand with Proposed Modified Project, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/General-Plan/General-PlanCommunity-Vision, accessed December 27, 2024. 882
CC 07/01/2025
882 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption

c. The project applicant shall obtain a letter of clearance from the Cupertino Sanitary District and provide a copy of the letter of clearance to the City prior to issuance of the first permit.

This will ensure that the existing system can support the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to wastewater utilities.

3.5.4 Solid Waste
The City contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection services to residents in the city. Solid waste is collected by Recology and deposited at the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill in Milpitas. The proposed project site is already served by solid waste services and will continue to be served by Recology under the proposed project. As shown in the solid waste evaluation included in Appendix G, Environmental Assessment, of the Cupertino General Plan, which includes the project site being developed at a greater density (65 dwelling units per acre) than what is proposed (25 dwelling units per acre), the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill has sufficient capacity for buildout of the General Plan. As shown, an increase of 8.8 tons per day from implementation of the General Plan buildout would be 0.4 percent of the current residual capacity of Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. 55 The proposed project will not result in an excess of solid waste that will not be able to be accommodated under existing services.

3.5.5 Public Services Providers
The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction, renovation, or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by increases in population. The proposed project will have a significant environmental impact if it exceeds the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.

The proposed project is in an area already served by public service providers. Through developer impact fees, development of the proposed project will support the City’s public services funds that are used, in part, to maintain City services. Likewise, and pursuant to SB 50,56 the project applicant will be required to pay the school impact fees required for residential development to offset impacts to the school district. As shown in the public services evaluation included in Appendix G, Environmental Assessment, of the Cupertino General Plan, which includes the project site being developed at a greater density (65 dwelling 55 City of Cupertino, April 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Appendix G, General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments Environmental Assessment, Table 4.15-7, Increase in Solid Waste Generation with Proposed Modified Project, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/General-Plan/General-PlanCommunity-Vision, accessed December 27, 2024. 56 Senate Bill 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. 883
CC 07/01/2025
883 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

3. Exemption
PlaceWorks Page 56
units per acre) than what is proposed (25 dwelling units per acre), impacts to public service providers (fire protection, police, schools, libraries, and parks) were found to be less than significant at General Plan buildout. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an increase in demand that will prevent public service providers from adequately serving residents.
884
CC 07/01/2025
884 of 1130

4. Exceptions
In addition to analyzing the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this document assesses whether any of the exceptions to categorical exemptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) apply to the proposed project. The following analysis compares the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the project, and concludes, based on substantial evidence, that none of the exceptions are applicable to the project, and that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 and 15332.

4.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(A): LOCATION
Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply to all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.

The proposed project does not qualify for an exemption under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11. The project site is in an urban developed area and is not in a sensitive environment. In addition, the proposed project will not result in any impacts on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.2 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(B): CUMULATIVE IMPACT All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant.

The project site is in an urban neighborhood that is already served by utilities and public services, as well as transportation. As discussed in Section 3.4, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d): Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, or Water Quality, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts pertaining to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Any construction effects will be temporary, confined to the project vicinity, and reduced to the extent feasible through compliance with the CMC and applicable regulations. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) does not apply to the proposed project. 885
CC 07/01/2025
885 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions
PlaceWorks Page 58

4.3 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(C): SIGNIFICANT EFFECT A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no known unusual circumstances that are applicable to the project, which may result in a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing three commercial buildings on the project site and the construction of 59 new residential townhome units. The proposed project will not result in a change in the existing land use or zoning designations or introduce a new activity to the area that could result in a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15003.2(b) does not apply to the proposed project.

4.4 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(D): SCENIC HIGHWAYS A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements that are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified environmental impact report (EIR).

The proposed project will not affect a resource within a State Scenic Highway. The nearest scenic highway, State Route 9, is over five miles south of the project site. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway, I-280, is approximately 0.8 miles north of the project site, with urban development between.57 The project site is not visible from I-280. Additionally, the project site and surrounding area are already developed. Therefore, no scenic resources within view of a State Scenic Highway will be altered as part of the project.

4.5 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(E): HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. CEQA requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether a project and any alternatives are identified.58 The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” named after the legislator who authored the legislation. Because 57 California Department of Transportation, 2025, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed February 13, 2025.
58 California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6.
886
CC 07/01/2025
886 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions

the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on internet websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) online EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) online GeoTracker database. These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction.

The project site is not included on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese) pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 as of May 2025.59 Additionally, the project site is not listed on any of the following CalEPA’s Cortese List Data Resources:60
 List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC EnviroStor database61  List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from SWRCB’s GeoTracker62  List of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit63
 List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from SWRCB64  List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC65
Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the proposed project. 59 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2025, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese), https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG ,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed May 22, 2025. 60 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed May 8, 2025. 61 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2025, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese), https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG ,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed May 22, 2025. 62 State Water Resources Control Board, 2025, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip= &county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search=Search, accessed May 22, 2025. 63 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf, accessed May 22, 2025. 64 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board, https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CDOCAOList.xlsx, accessed May 22, 2025. 65 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a), https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/, accessed May 22, 2025. 887
CC 07/01/2025
887 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions
PlaceWorks Page 60

4.6 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15300.2(F): HISTORICAL RESOURCES A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The Union Church of Cupertino, 70 feet west of the project site, is considered a Historic Site in the Cupertino General Plan.66 While no work is proposed on this neighboring site, construction activities could have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources in the immediate vicinity of the site because demolition, excavation, and other construction activities could result in substantial ground vibration or soil movement under or adjacent to the foundation of a historical resource.

Construction impacts typically consist of destabilization associated with groundborne vibration in the vicinity of a historic building or destabilization associated with demolition or new construction directly abutting a historic building. The California Department of Transportation criteria related to the potential for historic and some old buildings to be damaged from groundborne vibration induced by construction equipment for continuous/frequent intermittent sources is 0.25 PPV.67 As shown in Table 3-3, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, no construction equipment would exceed this criterion at 25 feet. Because the Union Church of Cupertino is 70 feet from the project site, there would be no significant vibration impacts from the proposed project. Furthermore, as outlined in Section 3.4.2.2, Groundborne Vibration, the project applicant will be required to prepare and implement a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan to minimize impacts related to construction vibration, pursuant to CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(3).

There is also no known sensitivity for archaeological or paleontological resources on the site. However, the site may contain previously unknown subsurface archaeological and paleontological deposits. The proposed project will comply with Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-72 in the General Plan, which requires compliance with City, State, and federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes, including laws related to archaeological resources. In particular, the proposed project will be required to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), which specifies procedures to be used in the event of a discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. Additionally, CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, identifies standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet. Specifically, the project applicant will be required to comply with CMC Sections 17.04.050(E)(1), 17.04.050(E)(2), and 17.04.050(H), which will minimize impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources:
66 City of Cupertino, May 2024, Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element, Figure LU-3, Historic Resources, https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/General-Plan/General-Plan-Community-Vision, accessed March 17, 2025. 67 California Department of Transportation, April 2020, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 19, Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf, accessed March 17, 2025. 888
CC 07/01/2025
888 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions

CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. For all projects requiring ground-disturbing activities on land with no known archaeological or tribal cultural resources that has not been previously disturbed and/or where ground-disturbing activities would occur at a greater depth or affect a greater area than previously disturbed, the following shall be required:
a. Areas with No Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas where there are no known cultural resources, prior to soil disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting these resources as follows:
i. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone, bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials, either human or animal. ii. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on site. iii. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 and Section 7052. iv. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:

1. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.

2. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the project.

3. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist shall perform this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.
889
CC 07/01/2025
889 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions
PlaceWorks Page 62
b. Areas with Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas of known cultural resources as documented in the 2015 General Plan EIR Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced by the City, and the archaeological or tribal cultural resources cannot be avoided, in addition to the requirements in Section E.1.a for all construction projects with ground-disturbing activities, the following additional actions shall be implemented prior to ground disturbance:
i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface investigation of the project site, and to ascertain the extent of the deposit of any buried archaeological materials relative to the project’s area of potential effects, in consultation with a tribal representative as applicable. The archaeologist shall prepare a site record and file it with the California Historical Resource Information System and the City of Cupertino. ii. If the resource extends into the project’s area of potential effects as determined by the archaeologist, the resource shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist to determine if the resource is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is not eligible, no further action is required unless there is a discovery of additional resources during construction (as required above for all construction projects with ground-disturbing activities). If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is eligible, the qualified archaeologist shall identify ways to minimize the effect which the project applicant shall implement. A written report of the results of investigations and mitigations shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist and filed with the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center and the City of Cupertino.

CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(2), Protect Human Remains and Native American Burials. The project applicant shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of the deceased Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to make recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains. If the Most Likely 890
CC 07/01/2025
890 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions

Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours after being allowed access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance and provide documentation about this determination and the location of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction shall halt until the mediation has concluded.

CMC Section 17.04.050(H), Protect Paleontological Resources During Construction. If paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing and/or other construction activities, all construction shall be temporarily halted or redirected to allow a qualified paleontologist, which shall be retained by the project applicant, to assess the find for significance. If paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in coordination with a qualified paleontologist, City staff, and property owner. Appropriate actions may include, but are not limited to, a mitigation plan formulated pursuant to guidelines developed by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and implemented to appropriately protect the significance of the resource by preservation, documentation, and/or removal, prior to recommencing activities. Measures may include, but are not limited to, salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or traces (e.g., tracks, trails, burrows); screen washing to recover small specimens; preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation (e.g., removal of enclosing matrix, stabilization and repair of specimens, and construction of reinforced support cradles); and identification, cataloging, curation, and provision for repository storage of prepared fossil specimens.

With mandatory compliance with CMC Sections 17.04.050(E)(1), 17.04.050(E)(2), and 17.04.050(H), the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to unknown archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15003.2(f) does not apply to the proposed project.
891
CC 07/01/2025
891 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

4. Exceptions
PlaceWorks Page 64
This page has been intentionally left blank.
892
CC 07/01/2025
892 of 1130

5. Conclusion
As discussed in Chapter 3, Exemption, of this document, the proposed project meets the criteria for categorically exempt in-fill development projects in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and because, as discussed previously, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, and it will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption is appropriate for the proposed project. 893
CC 07/01/2025
893 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

5. Conclusion
PlaceWorks Page 66
This page has been intentionally left blank.
894
CC 07/01/2025
894 of 1130

6. List of Preparers

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Emi Sugiyama, Associate Planner, Project Manager

PLACEWORKS
Terri McCracken, Principal, Principal-in-Charge
Vivian Kha, Associate, Project Manager
Nicole Vermilion, Principal, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Lance Park, Senior Associate, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chris Shields, Senior Associate, Noise
Emily Parks, Associate, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 895
CC 07/01/2025
895 of 1130
20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWNHOMES PROJECT CEQA EXEMPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO

6. List of Preparers
PlaceWorks Page 68
This page has been intentionally left blank.
896
CC 07/01/2025
896 of 1130
From: Vivek Sagdeo
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama; Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Liang Chao Subject: Followup on the public hearing on 20840 Stevens creek Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:20:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
It was quite illuminating to attend the hearing.

As a block leader, I would like to request a hearing with the Scofield block, which is affected by this project. We had vigorous activity related to Scofield MFU. We had no activity at all for this and let us discuss this before approving.

Mayor, since architectural committee did not wait to hear our feedback, hope that you will be able to discuss it with us before approval.

Vivek
Vivek Sagdeo
block leader
20821 Scofield
897
CC 07/01/2025
897 of 1130
#138188 Letter of Support for 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Submitted
June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Andrew Ha <[email protected]>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>, Jordan Grimes <[email protected]>, Lin, Austin <[email protected]>, McNamara, Ryan <[email protected]>, Sbull <[email protected]> Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Andrew Ha June 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM
To whom this may concern,
My name is Andrew Ha and I'm writing on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, an organization dedicated to advancing sustainable land use and climate-smart development in the 9 county Bay Area.

We would like to express our support for the 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd project (#DP-2024-002), which has now been certified by our Development Endorsement Program. We believe that this project will provide much needed sustainable infill housing to Cupertino and hope that the city's planning commission would agree.

Thank you so much for reviewing this project and we hope to see it break ground soon. ––
Sincerely,
Andrew Ha (he/him)
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 543-6771 ext. 322
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From Surviving to Thriving: Greenbelt Alliance’s New Strategic Plan Read our vision for the next five years: greenbelt.org/strategic-plan Support Software by Zendesk
6/9/25, 2:38 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/138188/print 1/1 898 CC 07/01/2025
898 of 1130
June 4, 2025
RE: Endorsement of 20840 Stevens Creek in Cupertino, CA Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live—healthy places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—Development Endorsement Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. By promoting climate-smart development we can create thriving, resilient neighborhoods with ready access to transit and housing choices for all of the Bay Area’s people.

After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the proposed 20840 Stevens Creek project.

Location and Economic Benefits
In hopes to build more infill housing, the developer SummerHill Homes is proposing a 59-unit townhome neighborhood nearby a plethora of community amenities including shops, parks, schools, and a community college. It is well situated for residents to have access to many of their basic needs. 12 of the units will be deed-restricted, below-market rate housing which will promote affordability and accessibility in the community.

Sustainable Development
The project will be an all-electric residential neighborhood, providing solar panels and EV charging capacities within each home. Sustainability is also reflected in their landscaping and water management practices: SummerHill will grow drought tolerant and native plants, include climate sensitive controllers in common areas, and set up biological treatment for stormwater runoff. The development will also be built in an area with minimal fire and flood risks, promoting its overall resilience to climate hazards.

Moreover, the 20840 Stevens Creek project will be moderately connected to public transit. It will be besides multiple VTA bus routes including the 55, 51, Rapid 523, and 23. Residents are also encouraged to bike to nearby amenities, with each garage allotting 2 spaces for bicycles.

According to GreenTRIP—a free online tool created by Transform that models traffic and greenhouse gas impacts of residential projects in California— the 20840 Stevens Creek project development will result in:
899
CC 07/01/2025
899 of 1130
● 231 fewer miles driven every day compared to the Santa Clara County average. ● 12% fewer GHG impacts every day compared to the Santa Clara County average. ● 3% less parking use every day compared to the Santa Clara County average.

Greenbelt Alliance believes the 20840 Stevens Creek project will provide much needed SMART, infill housing in Cupertino and we are proud to give this project an endorsement! We hope its approval will inspire higher density development in the city and around the Bay Area.

Sincerely,
Andrew Ha
State and Regional Resilience Associate
Greenbelt Alliance
900
CC 07/01/2025
900 of 1130
#136248 Public Comment, May 13th meeting agenda item 3
Submitted
May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Received via
Mail
Requester
Jack Farrell <[email protected]>
CCs
Emi Sugiyama <[email protected]>, Lin, Austin <[email protected]>, McNamara, Ryan <[email protected]>, Sbull <[email protected]>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Lindsay Nelson
Jack Farrell May 12, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Good morning,
Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding the proposal at 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
McNamara, Ryan June 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Hi Emi, I just wanted to resend the attached from Jack Farrel for the June 10th Planning Commission packet.

Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan McNamara
Director of Development
SummerHill Homes 📞 Tel: (925)244-8706 | 📱 Mobile (925)766-1350 Follow Us:

All subject matter contained in this email is confidential and proprietary to SummerHill Homes LLC and should not be disclosed to any person not listed as an original recipient. SummerHill Homes LLC. All rights reserved.
6/9/25, 2:40 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/136248/print 1/2 901 CC 07/01/2025
901 of 1130
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
1 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 1 0 5/ 12/ 20 25
Cit y of Cu p ert in o
Plan n in g Com m ission
10 30 0 Torre Ave
Cu p ert in o, CA 9 50 14
Via em ail (p lan n in g@ cu p ert in o.gov)
Re: May 13, 20 25 h earin g, agen d a it em 3
Dear Plan n in g Com m ission of Cu p ert in o,
We a re pleased to subm it th is letter of support of th e proposed Sum m erh ill Hom es project at 20 8 4 0 St even s Creek Bou levard . YIMBY Law is a 50 1(c)3 n on - profit corporation, whose m ission is t o in crease t h e accessibilit y an d afford ability of h ou sin g in Californ ia. Th e Su m m erh ill Hom es p roject will con sist of 59 t own h om es, wh ich in clu d e 12 below m arket rat e t own h om es, on a sit e d esign at ed for resid en t ial d evelop m en t in t h e Cu p ert in o Hou sin g 20 23- 20 31 Hou sin g Elem en t .

Sum m erh ill’s p rop osal is con sist en t wit h t h e Heart of t h e Cit y sp ecific p lan , t h e Cu p ert in o Gen eral Plan , an d local zon in g ord in an ces. As you r officials h ave alread y id en t ified t o Californ ia’s Dep art m en t of Hou sin g an d Com m u n it y Develop m en t t h at th e sit e is appropriate for resid en t ial u s e an d m ay con t ribu t e t o t h e RHNA o bligat ion s, it is in argu a bly ben eficial t o public welfare that it be used for that purpose.

Th e Ho u s in g Cr is is Act o f 20 19 (SB 330 ) an d t h e Cit y’s Ho u s in g Elem en t Sum m erHill proposes to develop 59 town h om e- style condom inium s on a portion of the approxim ately 2.9 7- acre sit e at 20 8 4 0 St even s Creek Bo u levcard . Su m m erHill su bm it t ed an SB 330 Prelim in ary Ap p licat ion for t h e p roject on Jan u ary 29 , 20 24 . Pu rs u an t t o sect ion 6 558 9 .5 902
CC 07/01/2025
902 of 1130
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
2 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 2 of t h e Govern m en t Cod e, t h e p roject is su bject on ly t o t h e ord in an ces, policies, an d st an d ard s ad op t ed an d in effect wh en t h e Prelim in ary Ap p licat ion was su bm it t ed .

Th e p rop osed p ro ject is con sist en t wit h t h e Cit y’s Gen eral Plan an d zon in g ord in an ce an d ot h er ap p licable object ive st a n d ard s. In ad d it ion , th e Cit y’s su bs equ en t ly ap p roved 20 23– 20 31 Housin g Elem en t iden tifies th e project as a Housin g In ven tory Site . By designating the site as a Hou sin g In ven t ory Sit e, t h e Cit y select ed t h e sit e for resid en t ial u se an d d et erm in ed t h at resid en t ial d evelop m en t of t h e sit e wou ld assist th e Cit y in m eet in g it s Region al Hou sin g Need s Allocat ion .

Th e State Den sity Bon us Law
Su m m erHill p rop oses t o p rovid e 12 of t h e 59 t own h om e- style condom inium s at below m arket rat e p rices. By d esign at in g at least 10 p ercen t of t h e u n it s for Mod erat e In com e h ou seh old s, t h e project qualifies for ben efits un der th e State Den sity Bon us Law.

Un der th e State Den sity Bon us Law, a developer m ay propose un lim ited waivers of developm en t stan dards th at would have th e effect of ph ysically precludin g con struction of a qualifyin g project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives perm itted by th e Den sity Bon us Law.

Sum m erHill is en titled to th e waivers it h as requested, all of wh ich will provide relief from developm en t stan dards th at would ph ysically preclude con struction of th e project at th e den sity proposed.

On ce a p roject qu alifies for a d en sit y bon u s, St at e law p rovid es t h at t h e Cit y m ay d en y a requested waiver only if it would have a specific, adverse im pact upon health or safety, would have an adverse im pact on a historic resource, or would be contrary to State or Federal law. In this context, specific adverse im pact “ m eans a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable im pact, based on objective, iden tified written public h ealth or safety stan dards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the da te th e application was deem ed com plete.” 1 There is no
1Gov. Cod e, § § 6 59 15, su bd . (e)(1), 6 558 9 .5, su bd . (d )(2). 903
CC 07/01/2025
903 of 1130
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
3 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 3 substan tial eviden ce in th e record th at an y of Sum m erHill’s requested waivers would m eet th e crit eria for Cit y d en ial.

Th e Ho u s in g Acco u n t a b ilit y Act
Th e Hou sin g Accou n t a bilit y Act , in Sect ion 6 558 9 .5(j)(1)(A)- (B), lim its a m un icipality’s ability to deny or condition on lower density a housing developm ent project that com plies with object ive st an d ard s. Th e Cit y m ay on ly disap p rove t h e p roject or im p ose conditions on the project th at would reduce den sity if n ecessary to avoid a “ sign ifican t, quan tifiable, direct, an d un avoidable im pact, based on objective, iden tified written public h ealth or safety stan dards, policies, or conditions as they existed on th e date the application was deem ed com plete” and there is no feasible m ethod to m itigate or avoid those im pacts other than disapproval or developm en t at a lower den sity.

We h ave reviewed t h e p roject p lan s, t h e CEQA d ocu m en t an d t h e variou s exp ert rep ort s t h at h ave been prepared for th e project, an d th ere is n ot a prepon deran ce of eviden ce in th e record th at wou ld ju st ify t h e Cit y’s d isap p roval of t h e p roject or con d it ion in g th e project in a m an n er th at would reduce den sity.

Sum m ary
Th e Legislat u re h as m ad e n u m erou s am en d m en t s t o Californ ia Hou sin g Law in an effort t o provide in creased clarity an d certain ty for both m un icipalities an d h ousin g providers. Based on th ese laws, th e project is subject on ly to th e objective stan dards th at were in effect on the date of t h e Prelim in ary Ap p licat ion ; t h e p roject is en t it led t o t h e requ est ed waivers u n d er Den sit y Bon us law; with th ose waivers th e project is con sisten t with applicable objective stan dards; an d the evidence in the record would not ju st ify t h e Cit y’s d en ial of t h e p roject or im p osit ion of approval th at would reduce den sity. Disapproval of th e project or approval with con dition s th at would ren der th e project in feasible at th e den sity proposed would con traven e State law. 904
CC 07/01/2025
904 of 1130
YIMBY Law
226 1 Market St reet STE 10 4 16
San Fran cisco, CA 9 4 114
hello@yim bylaw.org
4 YIMBY Law, 226 1 M ar k et St r eet STE 10 4 16 , San Fr an cis co , CA 9 4 114 4 It is YIMBY Act ion ’s u n d erst an d in g t h at Cit y st aff h as p rocessed Su m m erHill’s d evelop m en t ap p licat ion wit h p rofession alism an d recogn it ion of t h e Cit y’s obligat ion s u n d er St at e law. We ap p reciat e t h e st aff’s coop erat ion an d en cou rage t h e Plan n in g Com m ission an d t h e City Cou n cil to continue to uphold the sam e standard.

I am sign in g t h is let t er bot h in m y cap acit y as th e Execu t ive Dir ect or of YIMBY Law, an d as a resid en t of Californ ia wh o is affect ed by th e sh ort age of h ou sin g in ou r st at e. I look forward t o seein g th is project approved an d bough t to realization to h elp change the tides of the housing crisis in t h e Bay Area.

Sincerely,
Son ja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
905
CC 07/01/2025
905 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 7:37:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project. This is a very Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It Will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
906
CC 07/01/2025
906 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 8:06:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies should be Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.

Thank you.

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.

Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project. This is a very Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It Will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
907
CC 07/01/2025
907 of 1130
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
908
CC 07/01/2025
908 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project) Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:02:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council and Planning Commission:

There is a heritage oak tree located just to the south of the Dish Dash Restaurant building And the Pizza Hut Building. The city planted the Valley Oak ten years ago to replace Another Oak Tree in the same location that was perhaps 150 years old. This was When the Dish Dash Building was being remodeled from the Marie Calendars that was There before.

The old oak tree had been on this site when the old house on the property was there. This old House was used as a mortuary and the oak tree was located adjacent to the house. The house Had probably been there since perhaps 1900 and I am assuming the oak was left on the Property as the tree was perhaps from 1860 from observing the huge diameter of the trunk.

The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to The east and south side of the oak tree.

This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a large Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a Magnificent specimen tree.

I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on this Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.

Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.

This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great pains And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for that matter.

I will be attending the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on this SB 330 Staples Housing Project and will bring up the issues concerning the safety of this tree in this Potential construction zone. This Valley Oak has a good ten years of growing time already And I don't want to see this tree destroyed or damaged by getting housing construction Close to it. Valley Oaks are precious trees to California and this tree is irreplaceable.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
909
CC 07/01/2025
909 of 1130
From: James Lloyd
To: Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Clerk; Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: public comment re item 2 for 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:26:49 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - 20770-20840 Stevens Creek Blvd - HAA Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 2 for 6/10/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
910
CC 07/01/2025
910 of 1130
Jun 6, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 59-unit housing development project at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd, which includes 6 moderate-income units and 6 median-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
911
CC 07/01/2025
911 of 1130
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, front setback, setback from landscape easement, side setback, rear setback, service access, private outdoor space clearance, building form, lot coverage, parking space size, planter strip, and retail component. If the City were to deny the requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City were to deny the requested requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v.

City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3
912
CC 07/01/2025
912 of 1130
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
913
CC 07/01/2025
913 of 1130
From: David Rolnick
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Housing Project on Staples/Fontana"s/Pizza Hut Properties Date: Sunday, June 8, 2025 8:51:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Some thoughts on the housing project being proposed for the Staples and former Pizza Hut and Fontana properties:

1. There should be a retail component to this development. This may be one of the best areas in the city for retail to work. If we want a walkable pedestrian friendly city, Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage should be retail. If this developer can get away without providing any retail, the message it will send to other developers is that Cupertino does not require retail as part of any new development.

2. No Very Low Income (VLI) Housing is being proposed. The Housing plan called for 59 VLI units at this site. Zero are being proposed. If this developer can get away with provide zero units, other developers will try the same tactics.

3. Appropriate setbacks for the units on the south end of the property (bordering the homes on Scofield Drive) should be provided.

Thank you.

David Rolnick
914
CC 07/01/2025
914 of 1130
From: Louis Mirante
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Support Letter for Stevens Creek
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 2:49:29 PM
Attachments: Outlook-Logo Desc.png
Outlook-Text Desc.png
Outlook-Logo, icon.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
Outlook-Icon Desc.png
BAC Support - SummerHill Cupertino.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hey Cupertino Planning Commission,
Please see the attached letter of support letter from the Bay Area Council for the 59-unit townhome project on Stevens Creek Boulevard you will consider at your meeting tomorrow. If you have any questions about our letter, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Best wishes,
Louis
Louis Mirante
Vice President of Public Policy, Housing
Phone: (510) 908-0537 | Email: [email protected] The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco www.bayareacouncil.org
915
CC 07/01/2025
915 of 1130
P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111
June 9, 2025
City of Cupertino
Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Support for SummerHill Homes’ 59-Unit Townhome Project at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I write to express strong support for the proposed 59- unit townhome condominium development by SummerHill Homes at 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project represents a vital opportunity for Cupertino to advance toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets—particularly for moderate-income households—through thoughtful infill development.

The Bay Area Council represents 350 of the largest employers in the Bay Area, including companies, public agencies, and unions. We convene conversations on the most important issues facing the Bay Area and we work to make the Bay Area the best place to work and play. We are deeply committed to building the 3.5 million new homes our state needs to address our existing shortfall and the attendant high housing prices. Our goal is to endorse housing in areas that have important benefits to the region’s environment and transportation system, so we are especially supportive of projects close to jobs.

This project is one of the most important projects for meeting our goals we have seen in recent years. The proposal replaces an underutilized retail site with new homes, including 12 deed-restricted affordable ownership units for moderate- and median-income households. These types of for-sale affordable homes are among the most difficult to produce in California, and their inclusion makes this project especially valuable in addressing the city’s housing shortfall.

The units will count toward Cupertino’s RHNA obligations under the 6th Cycle Housing Element, helping ensure the city remains in compliance with state law and avoids consequences for underproduction.

SummerHill’s project is consistent with the city’s General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and makes thoughtful use of the state Density Bonus Law to deliver a feasible and high-quality community that includes open space, landscaping, and public art. This development helps Cupertino make real progress toward its 2023–2031 housing targets by bringing a meaningful number of homes to a central location near jobs, schools, and services. Given the city’s ambitious RHNA goals, timely approval of well-located projects like this one is essential.

The Bay Area Council applauds Cupertino for its work to advance housing solutions and urges the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this project. Doing so sends a clear 916
CC 07/01/2025
916 of 1130
P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath PO Box 5135 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero Berkeley, CA 94705 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111
message that the city is serious about building housing for all income levels and meeting its longterm obligations under state housing law.

Sincerely,
Louis Mirante
Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council
[email protected]
917
CC 07/01/2025
917 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Letters on Staples SB 330 Project
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:05:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission:

I sent several letters to the Planning Commission about the SB 330 Staples Project site. I had Concerns about the traffic load, the heritage oak tree on the Southern side of Pizza Hut And Dish Dash Restaurant and loss of retail as I shop at the Staples frequently. I don't see Any of my letters in the comments received section. I am particularly concerned about the Potential of another SB 330 going in across Stevens Creek Blvd. at Panera Bread. We need To have LOS service traffic studies before this project is built.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
918
CC 07/01/2025
918 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project) Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:17:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. Letter of concern about Oak Tree on the Southern Side of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut sent on
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Heritage Oak Tree South of Dish Dash Restaurant and Pizza Hut (By SB 330 Staples Project)
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 9:02 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected] CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council and Planning Commission:

There is a heritage oak tree located just to the south of the Dish Dash Restaurant building And the Pizza Hut Building. The city planted the Valley Oak ten years ago to replace Another Oak Tree in the same location that was perhaps 150 years old. This was When the Dish Dash Building was being remodeled from the Marie Calendars that was There before.

The old oak tree had been on this site when the old house on the property was there. This old House was used as a mortuary and the oak tree was located adjacent to the house. The house Had probably been there since perhaps 1900 and I am assuming the oak was left on the Property as the tree was perhaps from 1860 from observing the huge diameter of the trunk.

The tree was clearly observable from the (former) Mervyns parking lot which is adjacent to The east and south side of the oak tree.

This 150 year old heritage oak tree was replaced by the city ten years ago. There is now a large
Twenty foot tall Valley Oak in excellent condition. The tree has a large open area around its Perimeter and canopy and nothing is crowding it. It had plenty of space to grow to a Magnificent specimen tree.

I am concerned the proposed SB 330 Staples Condominium Project might be encroaching on this
919
CC 07/01/2025
919 of 1130
Heritage tree. I cannot tell from the plans where the tree is located, but I have always assumed It was on the Dish Dash property or the Mervyns parking lot property.

Please make sure this oak tree is not crowded or disturbed by this SB 330 Housing project.

This is a protected heritage oak tree that is protected by city law. The city has taken great pains
And invested money in this tree and it would be an absolute travesty to see one of our city Heritage trees senseless destroyed or harmed by an SB 330 Project or any development for that matter.

I will be attending the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on this SB 330 Staples Housing Project and will bring up the issues concerning the safety of this tree in this Potential construction zone. This Valley Oak has a good ten years of growing time already And I don't want to see this tree destroyed or damaged by getting housing construction Close to it. Valley Oaks are precious trees to California and this tree is irreplaceable.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
920
CC 07/01/2025
920 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:31:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include this letter from June 5 in the public comments about SB 330 at the Tuesday, June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on Item Number 2. Thid letter went to City Council as well as
Well as the Planning Commission on June 5 asking that an LOS (Level of Service)Traffic Study be conducted
On the SB 330 Staples Project as the LOS tells the actual degradation of the surrounding Intersections due to increased traffic load from this and other proposed projects. Please include this
Letter in comments on the SB 330 Project for the June 10 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: SB 330 Project at Staples Shopping Center & LOS Traffic Studies From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025, 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected] Please see the corrected version of my letter to City Council to indicate that LOS Studies should be
Performed on the Staples SB 330 Project.

Thank you.

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers.

Also, the adjacent SB 330 Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine 921
CC 07/01/2025
921 of 1130
The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will this mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
to these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the LOS Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
On June 5, 2025, at 7:36 PM, Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council:

I am very concerned about the traffic congestion from the upcoming Staples SB 330 project.

This is a very
Complicated area already with the current street configurations of Stevens Creek Blvd, Saich Ave, Bandley, the entrances and exits to the adjacent shopping centers. Also, the adjacent SB 330
Project at Panera Bread across Stevens Creek Blvd will have a traffic impact on the area too. It Will affect the same intersections.

Are there going to be LOS studies to determine the traffic impacts on the area and determine The Level of Service for each intersection in the area? Also, because Staples is filing first, will This mean that the traffic issues from the Panera SB 330 Project will be taken into account for the
Staples SB 330 Project?
I think VMT is of little real value to determine how the Level of Service in the adjacent intersections
To these two projects will be affected. LOS is the true indicator of future traffic trends.

Please make sure that the VMT Traffic Studies are performed. We are losing viable active retail
Which is a true loss to the city. We don't want SB 330 to be both a retail crisis for the city As well as a traffic crisis in our city.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
922
CC 07/01/2025
922 of 1130
Jennifer Griffin
923
CC 07/01/2025
923 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: City Council; [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Loss of Retail at SB 330 Staples Site on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:52:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission:
(Please include this as comment on Item Number 2 (SB 330 Staples Project) on the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda)
SB 330 was supposed to be a "Housing Crisis" bill. It is now apparently becoming a "Retail Crisis" bill because Cupertino is losing so much viable retail down Stevens Creek Blvd. 80,000 square feet of retail is being lost from the collection of SB 330 projects being Proposed on Stevens Creek Blvd.

I shop at the Staples frequently. This store fulfills many needs. It has a Fed Ex office, office Supplies, packing equipment and it sells other items too. It is near De Anza College And also sells computer equipment.

I am very concerned that Cupertino will become a "retail desert" by using SB 330 so much.

SB 330 is not a very good housing bill and it should be amended to promote the retention Of retail.

Why is no retail being required at this SB 330 site? I don't want to have to shop outside of Cupertino for supplies and food. When my grandmother lived in Cupertino, you could get everything you needed in Cupertino. When my husband's family grew up in Cupertino, They always shopped in Cupertino. When I first moved to Cupertino, I could get everything I Needed in town. Now we are having to go to other cities or even to Morgan Hill or Santa Cruz to get supplies, food and services.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
924
CC 07/01/2025
924 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:49:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Loss of Retail on Stevens Creek Blvd.

From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 11:17 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please include this comment as public comment for the "Public Comment" section for the June 17, 2025 City Council
Meeting.)
I am very concerned that we are losing valuable retail space on Stevens Creek Blvd. due to the ever increasing SB 330 projects being introduced. SB 330 was marketed as A "Housing Crisis" bill, but it is rapidly becoming apparent it is in reality a "Retail Crisis" bill. It is wiping out all retail in easily accessible areas in Cupertino. We will have No place to buy food or medicine or services in this city. It will just be miles of Highrise housing complexes (especially if SB 79 passes) and there will be no place To shop for essentials.

I think the ability to get food and medicine and fuel and medical access should be added To the list of items that CEQA protects.

We should have a Study Session about the issues emerging from SB 330. These May have been unanticipated consequences, but SB 330 was never marketed to all of Us in the state before it was passed and we never got to comment on its downfalls.

Well, we are QAing it now. We are in the field and doing Beta Tests that should have been Performed before it was brought to market as an apparently "flawed" product. One of Its problems is that it is leading to a loss of retail which is a problem for the city. 925
CC 07/01/2025
925 of 1130
We need to correct this bill flaw before it is too late and we have no retail left at all In Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
926
CC 07/01/2025
926 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:01:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Commission:

It might be advisable to not have all the retail buildings at the SB 330 Staples Project Be demolished at the same time. We would wind up with another situation like we Have had at Westport or Vallco/The Rise and El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center in West San Jose. You have perfectly good retail buildings taken down to only become Vacant lots.

The El Paseo Shopping Center is particularly worrisome because busy retail was taken down And now the shopping center is just sitting with nothing much in the shopping center and no Hope of anything being built. The examples were the busy Luckys Grocery Store and the Lovely Hallmark Store which were pretty well closed and demolished in like a week.

I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.

My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.

It is hoped the Staples can be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in Cupertino after Its lease is up in 2026. It would not be good to knock the building down now because the Store has active retail and it has new service where you can return clothing and shoes And other items to the store and they will return them to the manufacturer for you.

My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and Shoes for her.

The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino And not just knocked down.

The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to be losing Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed? It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope that the Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another city, Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek Blvd.

I see El Paseo de Saratoga and how empty it is and I just drive on by. Even the Red Robims 927
CC 07/01/2025
927 of 1130
Closed which is so sad. Its better to go to El Camino in Sunnyvale where they have lots of Restaurants and grocery stores. We live Marie Callendars and Black Bear Diner. We recently Had a family reunion at Black Bear Diner. It was wonderful.

Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
928
CC 07/01/2025
928 of 1130
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:03:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please include the following as comments on Item Number 2 at the June 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting on the SB 330 Staples Project. Thank you.) -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Demolition of Retail Buildings at SB 330 Staples Project From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025, 3:01 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear Planning Commission:

It might be advisable to not have all the retail buildings at the SB 330 Staples Project Be demolished at the same time. We would wind up with another situation like we Have had at Westport or Vallco/The Rise and El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center in West San Jose. You have perfectly good retail buildings taken down to only become Vacant lots.

The El Paseo Shopping Center is particularly worrisome because busy retail was taken down And now the shopping center is just sitting with nothing much in the shopping center and no Hope of anything being built. The examples were the busy Luckys Grocery Store and the Lovely Hallmark Store which were pretty well closed and demolished in like a week.

I would like to see the Staples Store in Cupertino stay on the SB 330 Staples Project site As long as possible since my family and my mother-in-law's family shop there regularily.

My friend's family in Los Altos as well as my friend in Santa Clara use the Cupertino Staples. The Los Altos friend was upset that the store would be closing.

It is hoped the Staples can be encouraged to relocate elsewhere in Cupertino after Its lease is up in 2026. It would not be good to knock the building down now because the Store has active retail and it has new service where you can return clothing and shoes And other items to the store and they will return them to the manufacturer for you.

My friend in Los Altos uses the Staples for this also as she has an elderly mother to Take care of too. I use the Staples service for my mother also as I purchase clothing and 929
CC 07/01/2025
929 of 1130
Shoes for her.

The Staples is a wonderful store and I think it should be encouraged to remain in Cupertino And not just knocked down.

The Fontana Restaurant Building is brand new and hardly used. It is beautiful inside and It is a shame to knock it down. Both of my mother-in-laws ate at Fontanas over the years And both were in the new building when it was open a number of years ago. Why are They trying to knock down such a beautiful building built in the lovely Italian Mediterranean Style? Why can't they use it as a Club House for the Condo Buildings or keep this building As a lovely retail building amenity for a nail salon or cafe again like Bobbies? We are going to be losing
Panera Bread across the street soon with that SB 330 project Alottas in Los Altos was just Closed. Why do all the nice things In Cupertino get bulldozed? It doesn't look like this SB 330 Staples townhouse complex will be built all at once so I hope that the
Existing retail on site can remain so the site is not just an empty location. It will make Shoppers just drive by Stevens Creek Blvd if it is empty and go shop elsewhere in another city,
Especially if the Panera Bread is torn up across the street, not to mention Stevens Creek Blvd.

I see El Paseo de Saratoga and how empty it is and I just drive on by. Even the Red Robims Closed which is so sad. Its better to go to El Camino in Sunnyvale where they have lots of Restaurants and grocery stores. We live Marie Callendars and Black Bear Diner. We recently Had a family reunion at Black Bear Diner. It was wonderful.

Please preserve retail at SB 330 Staples Project as long as possible. Demolishing all The buildings at once looks so sad and makes no one want to shop or dine in Cupertino.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
930
CC 07/01/2025
930 of 1130
From: Rajiv Chamraj
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc: Vivek Sagdeo; Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone Subject: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840 Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members,
I live at 20791 Scofield Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd is on the north side of my property line. The C Street in the proposed development almost touches my property line. The City should ensure that the street terminates where Buildings 7 and 8 end.

This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of privacy and be free from traffic noise.

Best
Rajiv Chamraj
931
CC 07/01/2025
931 of 1130
From: Vivek Sagdeo
To: Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc: Sherman Wang; Stephanie Yang; Barbara Morrone
Subject: Re: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840 Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:12:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear members,
I am also a resident right next to the proposed development. My address is 20821 Scofield Drive. Fron one Fontanna's restaurant we all loved, to a very crowded 59 townhouse community in this 129000 sq ft lot is very drastic transition. More setbacks and lesser crowding will go a long way in keeping Cupertino livable and breathable city we all have come here for..

Thinking about the new residents in these townhouses, they will need decent living too.

Planning commission should compare this to communities like De Anza oaks and spacings in there.

Thanks
Vivek
From: Rajiv Chamraj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:58 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Vivek Sagdeo <[email protected]>; Sherman Wang <[email protected]>; Stephanie Yang <[email protected]>; Barbara Morrone <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd -20840 Dear Members,
I live at 20791 Scofield Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the proposed development on Stevens Creek Blvd is on the north side of my property line. The C Street in the proposed development almost touches my property line. The City should ensure that the street terminates where Buildings 7 and 8 end.

This will be helpful for several residents who live on Scofield Drive to maintain a level of privacy and be free from traffic noise.

Best
Rajiv Chamraj
932
CC 07/01/2025
932 of 1130
EV CHARGING ONLY STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 4 BLDG 7

A STREET B STREET
C STREET BLDG 8 BLDG 3 BLDG 5 BLDG 6
C STREET * * * * * * TYPICAL A STREET W/ PARKING SECTION TYPICAL 24' C STREET W/ PARKING SECTION TYPICAL 26' C STREET SECTION (BLDG 7 & 9) TYPICAL B STREET SECTION TYPICAL A & C STREET SECTION (BLDG 4) STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE SECTION STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE W/ BIORETENTION SECTION STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FRONTAGE W/ DRIVEWAY SECTION STREET A STEVENS CREEK BLVD LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS * NOTE: H:\3950-000\ACAD\TM\C2.0.DWG 381.07920840 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA March 26, 2025 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.0 SCALE 1" = 30' 30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 933
CC 07/01/2025
933 of 1130

M EMORANDUM
To: Emi Sugiyama, Associate Planner
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Subject: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for 20840 Stevens Creek; EPS #241073
Date: April 3, 2025
This memorandum provides a third-party peer review of a fiscal impact report for a proposed residential development at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino. The goal is to evaluate the assumptions, findings, and methodology of a report
(“Report”) prepared by BAE Urban Economics. (“BAE”) for SummerHill Homes.
1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
provided this peer review at the request of the City of Cupertino.

The BAE fiscal analysis is designed to estimate the impact of a proposed residential development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund budget, accounting for both tax revenues and incremental public service costs. The analysis provides an estimate of ongoing net fiscal impacts at project stabilization, once the project is fully built and occupied. Fiscal impact estimates are presented on constant 2025 dollars.

The proposed project is a 59-unit townhome-style condominium community. Out of the 59 total townhomes, twelve units are designated as affordable for median and moderate-income households. The fiscal impact of the existing retail and commercial buildings at the site is treated as a baseline condition (i.e., fiscal outcome in the absence of redevelopment). For this peer review, EPS set up an independent fiscal impact model to evaluate BAE’s results given project specifications and the baseline condition. The results of the EPS model are described in comparison to BAE’s results described in the Report. Key affirmations of or differences in assumptions, methodology, and findings are described in the memorandum. The memorandum is followed by an appendix table set, which contains detail on EPS’s fiscal peer review findings.
1 The original report is titled “Cupertino SummerHill Homes Community Fiscal Impact Analysis” (“Report”), dated July 12, 2024. 934
CC 07/01/2025
934 of 1130
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 2
Project Description
The City of Cupertino (“City”) has received an application for a residential project on a

2.90-acre site located at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard (“Proposed Project”). The site includes a 0.82-acre portion of an existing parcel, requiring a lot line adjustment. The Proposed Project would consist of 59 townhomes, twelve of which are designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units consistent with the City’s inclusionary requirements. Per the Report, the Project is expected to increase the City’s resident population by 190 persons. The site is currently the location of three commercial buildings, including 21,668 square feet of retail space occupied by an office supply store and 7,600 of vacant retail space.2 The combined 29,268 square feet of total existing retail space is the baseline condition for the purposes of the fiscal impact analysis.

BAE concludes that the fiscal impact of the Proposed Project is slightly positive, with net General Fund fiscal impacts over the baseline condition estimated at $2,900 annually.

Key Findings

1. BAE’s analysis concludes that the Proposed Project is likely to generate a slight positive fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. EPS’ peer review and modeling indicates that the overall fiscal benefit is likely to be slightly negative to neutral, primarily depending on how the baseline condition is analyzed.

EPS estimates that the fiscal impact of the Proposed Project at project buildout is $27,200 (Tables 1 and 2). EPS found that the fiscal impact of the baseline condition ranges from $30,000 to $37,400 depending on whether the 7,600 square feet of vacant retail remains vacant (or is re-leased to sales-taxgenerating tenants).

The BAE Report assumes that the 7,600 square feet of vacant retail remains vacant. However, given Cupertino’s strong retail market with a vacancy rate that is under 5 percent, EPS conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers the vacant retail as occupied. As shown in the alternative fiscal impact summary, Table 2, if the vacant retail is leased, the negative net fiscal impact of redevelopment would be more significant.
2 Square footages and current vacancies reported by BAE. 935
CC 07/01/2025
935 of 1130
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
Table 1 Annual Fiscal Impact Summary
Table 2 Annual Fiscal Impact Summary (Alternative)

2. EPS found BAE’s assumptions regarding market-rate and BMR townhome pricing to be reasonable given current market conditions.

For the market-rate townhomes, key assumptions EPS reviewed included townhome sales prices in the Cupertino region. EPS reviewed recent comparable townhome sales from 2022 to 2024 and can conclude that the Report’s assumed townhome sales price of $1,145 per square foot is on the higher end of townhome prices, but reasonable given strong demand in the local housing market. For the BMR townhomes, EPS reviewed 2024 household income limits for Santa Clara County provided by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department as well as the City’s inclusionary housing policy. EPS also reviewed home pricing assumptions such as mortgage insurance and interest rates. Based on current economic conditions and comparable projects, EPS concludes that BAE’s BMR home pricing assumptions are reasonable and appropriate for the fiscal analysis.

Revenue /
Expense Category
Fiscal Impact
at Project
Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
(Excluding Vacant Retail)
Net
Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $143,400 $44,900 $98,500
General Fund Expenditures $116,300 $14,900 $101,400
Net Impact on General Fund $27,200 $30,000 -$2,800
Revenue /
Expense Category
Fiscal Impact
at Project
Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
(With All Existing Retail)
Net
Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $143,400 $57,500 $85,900
General Fund Expenditures $116,300 $20,200 $96,100
Net Impact on General Fund $27,200 $37,400 -$10,200
936
CC 07/01/2025
936 of 1130
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 4

3. EPS found BAE’s methodology for estimating fiscal impacts follows generally accepted industry-standard approaches. BAE cites sources where appropriate, and thoroughly explains calculations, enabling EPS’ peer review of the study methodology and results.

Key assumptions used in estimating fiscal costs and revenues are included, and the Report’s summary tables are accompanied by more detailed narratives and tables provided in later sections and appendices. Most estimates use an average cost method to estimate impacts (i.e., average General Fund cost per unit of development) on a per service population basis, while selected categories alternatively use the case study approach (i.e., estimated using assumptions specific to the theoretical prototype land uses). Both methods are appropriate and standard for fiscal impact analyses.

4. In some instances, EPS and BAE preferred methodology and assumptions differ, such as with the calculation of new sales tax revenue and new transfer tax revenue.

EPS and BAE use different methods for the calculation of sales tax revenue attributed to the new residential development. EPS typically uses a case study approach to account for the spending power of new households. BAE uses a per resident method based on citywide taxable sales. The per resident method results in a higher level of taxable sales and sales tax revenue. In the fiscal model EPS created to replicate BAE’s results, EPS uses the case study method, and a more conservative result is reflected in the summary tables above.

For the baseline sales tax revenue calculation, EPS and BAE both use the case study approach. However, BAE assumes a lower sales per square foot than EPS.

HdL California Retail Analytics provides a sales per square foot range for office supply stores. BAE has assumed the lowest end of the range whereas EPS has assumed the mid-point.

For the calculation of transfer tax revenue associated with the Proposed Project, EPS’s fiscal impact model assumes a lower turnover rate than the BAE model. As a result, the EPS transfer tax revenue estimate is more conservative and slightly lower than BAE’s estimate. The lower transfer tax revenue is reflected in the summary tables above.

5. In addition, BAE’s per service population methodology for calculating Recreation & Community Services expenditures includes workers, which potentially understates the project’s costs to the City’s current General Fund.
937
CC 07/01/2025
937 of 1130
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 5
For the calculation of General Fund expenditures, as described above, both BAE and EPS use the per service population methodology. However, for Recreation & Community Services, EPS assumes that local parks in Cupertino are primarily resident serving. Instead of distributing the cost of Recreation & Community Services across the entire service population made up of residents and workers, EPS only takes into account residents as they are most likely to be served by the City’s Recreation & Community Services. The exclusion of workers results in a EPS’s higher cost estimate, which is reflected in the summary tables above.

6. BAE’s baseline retail square footage and resulting service population estimate is potentially understated, which disproportionately reduces the baseline contribution to the City’s current General Fund.

For the calculation of the baseline fiscal impact, BAE assumes an employment density of 1,500 square feet per employee whereas EPS uses 500 square feet per employee. EPS has found that the 500 square feet per employee is typical for retail uses. EPS’s higher employment density assumption for the baseline results in higher expenditures when calculating the baseline fiscal impact, which improves the overall net fiscal impact of the proposed project.

7. The City requested EPS to estimate one-time benefits of the Proposed Project. EPS estimates $122,000 in construction sales tax revenue and $2.6 million in development impact and in-lieu fees for a total of $2.7 million in one-time benefits. EPS estimates are provided for reference as one-time benefits are not included as part of BAE’s study.

The construction sales tax is calculated using an estimate of total construction costs. Construction costs are based on the Developer’s program and reported market values as provided in the BAE study and categorized as either a labor cost or materials cost. The 1 percent sales tax is only applied to a portion of the materials cost as only contracts of a certain size are eligible for point-of-sale capture.

The development impact fees and in-lieu fees estimate includes the parkland dedication in-lieu fee, transportation impact fee, and master storm drain area fee.3 The parkland dedication in-lieu fee assumes that the developer is not providing dedicated parkland through their development proposal. Per City confirmation, EPS assumes that the twelve BMR townhomes are not subject to the parkland dedication fee, but are subject to the master storm drain area and transportation impact fees.
3 The per unit fee amounts used in EPS’s calculations are from the City’s FY2024 – 2025 engineering fee schedule published on July 14, 2024.
938
CC 07/01/2025
938 of 1130
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com

STEVENS CREEK

FISCAL PEER REVIEW

CITY OF CUPERTINO
EPS #241073  April 3, 2025
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com
6 939
CC 07/01/2025
939 of 1130
Table 1
Net Annual Fiscal Impact Summary - Excluding Vacant Baseline RetailFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact
at Project
Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
(Excluding Vacant Retail)
Net
Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $143,400 $44,900 $98,500General Fund Expenditures $116,300 $14,900 $101,400Net Impact on General Fund $27,200 $30,000 -$2,800 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
7 940
CC 07/01/2025
940 of 1130
Table 1 (Alternative)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact Summary - All Baseline RetailFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact
at Project
Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
(With All Existing Retail)
Net
Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $143,400 $57,500 $85,900General Fund Expenditures $116,300 $20,200 $96,100Net Impact on General Fund $27,200 $37,400 -$10,200 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
8 941
CC 07/01/2025
941 of 1130
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com

NEW PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT
EPS #241073  April 3, 2025
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com
9 942
CC 07/01/2025
942 of 1130
Table 2-a
Project Program and Service PopulationFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Population PopulationResidential For-SaleTownhomes [1] 47 DU 2.85 Residents / HH 134 134 BMR For-Sale [2] 12 DU 4.67 Residents / HH 56 56
Total 190 190
[2] Based on BMR unit mix and estimated household size of number of bedrooms plus one.

Density Assumptions
Development
Program
[1] California Department of Finance 2024 City of Cupertino population estimate.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
10 943
CC 07/01/2025
943 of 1130
Table 3-a
FY2024-2025 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073) FY2024-2025
Total
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.0% of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681 0.3% of Citywide Assessed ValueOther Property Tax $22,280,296 7.00% of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 - not applicable
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service populationBusiness License $744,690Other Taxes $939,639 Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in valueLicenses & Permits $3,665,866 - not estimatedUse of Money & Property $4,697,122 - not estimatedIntergovernmental $2,471,990 - not estimated Charges for Services $15,102,136 - not estimatedFines & Forfeitures $395,000 - not estimatedMiscellaneous $1,210,653 - not estimatedOther Financing Sources $367,000 - not estimatedTransfer-In $15,000 - not estimated Total Revenues $89,804,468
Estimate Project Revenue Item Factors Applied to
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
11 944
CC 07/01/2025
944 of 1130
Table 4-a
Sales Tax EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Factor/
Estimate
Project Households Retail Purchases in CupertinoEstimated Annual Household Income [1] Townhomes 35% of income is Housing Costs $299,356
BMR For Sale $198,064
Household Taxable Retail Spending [2]
Single-Family Unit 14.3% percent of income $42,808BMR Unit 22.1% percent of income $43,772 Weighted Average Household Spending $43,004Household Retail Spending in Cupertino [3] 40% of retail expenditures $17,202 Project Households 59Household Taxable Retail Sales Captured in Cupertino $1,014,894Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $10,149 [2] Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey for respective income groups.Sources: State Board of Equalization, ICSC Research Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Assumptions
[3] Assumes 40 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City.[1] Income estimate relies on typical mortgage financing and the assumption that housing costs represent 35 percent ofgross household income.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
12 945
CC 07/01/2025
945 of 1130
Table 5-a
Property Tax and Property Tax In Lieu of VLF EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Land Use Total
at Buildout
Assessed Value Estimate
Market-Rate Townhomes $2,133,306 per Unit $100,265,360BMR For Sale $615,929 per Unit $7,391,147 Total Assessed Value $107,656,507Property Tax 1.0% Base Property Tax Rate $1,076,565Cupertino General Fund Revenue [1] 7.00% Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $75,360 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681 Citywide Assessed Value [2] $33,715,982,769Project Assessed Value Proportion [3] 0.32%Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue [4] $34,787 [1] Subject to City confirmation.[1] FY2024-2025 value based on secured and unsecured assessed value from Santa Clara County's Annual Assessor's Report.[3] Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase.

Assumption / Factor
[2] Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
13 946
CC 07/01/2025
946 of 1130
Table 6-a
Property Transfer Tax EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Land Use Annual Total
at Buildout
Property Value
Townhouse $2,133,306 per Unit $100,265,360
BMR Unit $615,929 per Unit $7,391,147
Total $107,656,507Average Annual Turnover 10.0% $10,765,651 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $5,921 Assumption / Factor
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
14 947
CC 07/01/2025
947 of 1130
Table 7-a
FY2024-2025 Other Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Annual Total
at Buildout
Utility User Tax $49.02 per service population 190 service pop. $9,314Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population 190 service pop. $7,914Total $17,227 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
15 948
CC 07/01/2025
948 of 1130
Table 8-a
FY2024-2025 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item City General
Fund Expenses
(FY2024-2025)
Percent
Variable [1]
Annual
Variable
Expenses
Per Capita
General
Fund
Expense
Project
Population/
Service
Population
Annual
Total at
Buildout
General Government [2] $15,170,440 10% $1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop. $18.01 190 $3,421Police [3] $18,648,806 90% $16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop. $199.21 190 $37,848Innovation and Technology [4] $3,122,993 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recreation &Community Services
$6,122,536 75% $4,591,902 59,471 Population $77.21 190 $14,670 Planning & Community Development
$11,460,954 50% $5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop. $68.02 190 $12,922 Public Works [5] $28,040,398 75% $21,030,299 84,252 Service Pop. $249.61 190 $47,424Non-Departmental $7,372,862 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $116,285
[1] Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges. [2] Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions. [4] Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS.

Sources: City of Cupertino FY2024-2025
Estimating Factors
[3] Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. Modeling assumes no change in the structure of the contract terms. [5] Includes administration, environmental programs, development services, service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
16 949
CC 07/01/2025
949 of 1130
Table 9-a
Annual Fiscal Impact SummaryFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Annual Fiscal ImpactGeneral Fund RevenuesSales Tax $10,100Property Tax $75,400Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $34,800Property Transfer Tax $5,900Utility Tax $9,300Franchise Fees $7,900 Total Revenues $143,400General Fund ExpendituresGeneral Government $3,400Police $37,800Recreation & Community Services $14,700Planning & Community Development $12,900Public Works $47,400 Total Expenditures $116,300Net Impact on General Fund $27,200 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
17 950
CC 07/01/2025
950 of 1130
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com

BASELINE

CONDITION
(ALTERNATIVE)
EPS #241073  April 3, 2025
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com
18 951
CC 07/01/2025
951 of 1130
Table 2-b
Project Program and Service PopulationFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Population Service
Population
Retail (Existing) 29,268 Sq.Ft. 500 Sq.Ft./ Employee 59 29 Total 59 29
[2] Based on BMR unit mix and estimated household size of number of bedrooms plus one.

Density Assumptions
Development
Program
[1] California Department of Finance 2024 City of Cupertino population estimate.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
19 952
CC 07/01/2025
952 of 1130
Table 3-b
FY2024-2025 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073) FY2024-2025
Total
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.0% of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681 0.0% of Citywide Assessed ValueOther Property Tax $22,280,296 7.00% of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 - not applicable
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service populationBusiness License $744,690Other Taxes $939,639 Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in valueLicenses & Permits $3,665,866 - not estimatedUse of Money & Property $4,697,122 - not estimatedIntergovernmental $2,471,990 - not estimated Charges for Services $15,102,136 - not estimatedFines & Forfeitures $395,000 - not estimatedMiscellaneous $1,210,653 - not estimatedOther Financing Sources $367,000 - not estimatedTransfer-In $15,000 - not estimated Total Revenues $89,804,468
Estimate Project Revenue Item Factors Applied to
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
20 953
CC 07/01/2025
953 of 1130
Table 4-b
Sales Tax EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Factor/
Estimate
Retail (Existing)
Retail Square Feet 5% Vacancy 27,805
Sales per Square Foot (Annual) $165Total Retail Sales (Annual) [1] $4,587,759 Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $45,878
Sources: State Board of Equalization, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Assumptions
[1] Based on HdL California Retail Analytics 2024 midpoint sales per square foot estimat for office supply stores.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
21 954
CC 07/01/2025
954 of 1130
Table 5-b
Property Tax and Property Tax In Lieu of VLF EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Land Use Total
at Buildout
Assessed Value Estimate
Retail (Existing AV from County) $293 per Sq.Ft. $8,572,942 Total Assessed Value $8,572,942Property Tax 1.0% Base Property Tax Rate $85,729Cupertino General Fund Revenue [1] 7.00% Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $6,001 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681 Citywide Assessed Value [2] $33,715,982,769Project Assessed Value Proportion [3] 0.03%Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue [4] $2,770 [1] Subject to City confirmation.[1] FY2024-2025 value based on secured and unsecured assessed value from Santa Clara County's Annual Assessor's Report.[3] Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase.

Assumption / Factor
[2] Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
22 955
CC 07/01/2025
955 of 1130
Table 6-b
Property Transfer Tax EstimateFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Land Use Annual Total
at Buildout
Property Value
Retail (Existing) $293 per Sq.Ft. $8,572,942
Total $8,572,942Average Annual Turnover 5.0% $428,647Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $236 Assumption / Factor
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
23 956
CC 07/01/2025
956 of 1130
Table 7-b
FY2024-2025 Other Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Annual Total
at Buildout
Utility User Tax $49.02 per service population 29 service pop. $1,435Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population 29 service pop. $1,219Total $2,654 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
24 957
CC 07/01/2025
957 of 1130
Table 8-b
FY2024-2025 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating FactorsFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item City General
Fund Expenses
(FY2024-2025)
Percent
Variable [1]
Annual
Variable
Expenses
Per Capita
General
Fund
Expense
Project
Population/
Service
Population
Annual
Total at
Buildout
General Government [2] $15,170,440 10% $1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop. $18.01 29 $527 Police [3] $18,648,806 90% $16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop. $199.21 29 $5,831 Innovation and Technology [4] $3,122,993 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recreation &Community Services
$6,122,536 75% $4,591,902 59,471 Population $77.21 59 $4,520 Planning & Community Development
$11,460,954 50% $5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop. $68.02 29 $1,991 Public Works [5] $28,040,398 75% $21,030,299 84,252 Service Pop. $249.61 29 $7,306Non-Departmental $7,372,862 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $20,174
[1] Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges. [2] Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions. [4] Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS.

Sources: City of Cupertino FY2024-2025
Estimating Factors
[3] Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. Modeling assumes no change in the structure of the contract terms. [5] Includes administration, environmental programs, development services, service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
25 958
CC 07/01/2025
958 of 1130
Table 9-b
Annual Fiscal Impact SummaryFiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)Item Annual Fiscal ImpactGeneral Fund RevenuesSales Tax $45,900Property Tax $6,000Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $2,800Property Transfer Tax $200Utility Tax $1,400Franchise Fees $1,200 Total Revenues $57,500General Fund ExpendituresGeneral Government $500Police $5,800Recreation & Community Services $4,500Planning & Community Development $2,000Public Works $7,300 Total Expenditures $20,200Net Impact on General Fund $37,400 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
26 959
CC 07/01/2025
959 of 1130
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com

ESTIMATE OF

ONE-TIME
FEES
EPS #241073  April 3, 2025
1330 Broadway, Suite 450  Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190  www.epsys.com
27 960
CC 07/01/2025
960 of 1130
Table 10
Estimate of One-Time Impact Fees
Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)
Fee Fee Project Required
Fee Category Amount Unit Units Fee
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee $54,000 per Market Rate DU 47 $2,538,000 Master Storm Drain Area Fee
Per Unit Amount $347 per DU [1] 58 $20,126
Per Acre Amount $4,584 per Acre 2.90 $13,294
Total Master Storm Drain Area Fee $33,420
Transportation Impact Fee
Proposed
Multifamily $4,215 per DU 59 $248,685
Existing
Retail $10.94 per Sq. Ft. 21,668 $237,048
Net Transportation Impact Fee $11,637
Total One-Time Impact Fee Amount $2,583,057
[1] Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre.

Source: City of Cupertino Fees Effective July 14, 2024. 28 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
961
CC 07/01/2025
961 of 1130
Table 11
One-Time Construction Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS# 241073)
Item Total
Total Construction Hard Costs [1] $69,976,730
Labor [2] 64% of Hard Costs $44,785,107
Materials 35% of Hard Costs $24,491,855
Point-of-Sale Assumption 50% of Materials $12,245,928
Total Construction Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% Sales Tax $122,459 Assumptions
[1] Assumes 65% of the total $107.7 million assessed value of the new project from the BAE report represents hard costs.
[2] IMPLAN analysis of residential industry spending.
29 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4/3/2025
962
CC 07/01/2025
962 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13971 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 13.

Subject: Approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update (Continued from May 6, 2025) Adopt Resolution No. 25‐058 approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by September 1, 2025.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™963
CC 07/01/2025
963 of 1130

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Subject
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update
Recommended Action
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by September 1, 2025.

Reasons for Recommendation
This item was originally brought to Council on May 6, 2025, but was postponed at Council’s request for additional information. Staff has since prepared and attached the “Informational Memorandum – FY 2025‑26 Fee Schedule Update” (Attachment K), which includes detailed responses to all Council inquiries. Additionally, the item has been re-noticed per State requirements.

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 User Fee Cost Recovery Policy (Attachment J) while maintaining fairness, clarity, and fiscal transparency. The proposed fee increases are estimated to generate approximately $654,569 in additional annual revenue, primarily benefiting the General Fund. 964
CC 07/01/2025
964 of 1130
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.

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 in Schedule A.

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 in Schedule B.

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 in Schedule C.

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.
965
CC 07/01/2025
965 of 1130
No new fees are being proposed in Schedule D.

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% 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
966
CC 07/01/2025
966 of 1130
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
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 September 1th, 2025, the proposed fee schedule adjustments are anticipated to generate additional revenues totaling $654,569 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. The fiscal impact of approving these fees has been updated to approximately ten of twelve months of the fiscal year, as the effective date has been delayed. 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 $809 2.7% CPI
Schedule B – Engineering $113,402 -0.79% CCI,

9.7% Labor Costs
Schedule C – Planning $88,546 2.7% CPI,

9.7% Labor Costs
Schedule D – Building $451,812 9.7% Labor Costs
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.
967
CC 07/01/2025
967 of 1130
Council Goal
Fiscal Strategy.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim 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
K – Info Memo - Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update 968
CC 07/01/2025
968 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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%
969
CC 07/01/2025
969 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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.
970
CC 07/01/2025
970 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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%

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
- 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
- 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:

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
- Hotel
- Other (per PM trip)
Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee)
- Single
- Annual Utility Company
- Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination
- Stand Alone Building Permit Review
971
CC 07/01/2025
971 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2024-25 Proposed
Fee
FY 2025-26 Proposed
Fee
YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Each $738 $809 $71.47 9.7%
Deposit $4,571 $5,014 $442.87 9.7%
Each No Charge No Charge
Each $3,200 $3,510 $310.02 9.7%
Each $4,980 $5,462 $482.48 9.7%
Each $2,597 $2,848 $251.58 9.7%
Each $1,610 $1,766 $156.00 9.7%
Each $1,125 $1,234 $108.96 9.7%
Each $300 $329 $29.10 9.7%
Each $1,411 $1,548 $136.74 9.7%
Each $1,149 $1,260 $111.33 9.7%
Each No Charge No Charge
Each $466 $511 $45.17 9.7%
Dwelling unit $4,707 $4,669 -$37.18 -0.8%
Per acre $6,389 $6,339 -$50.48 -0.8%
Per acre and $4,584 $4,548 -$36.21 -0.8%
Per unit $347 $345 -$2.74 -0.8%
Per acre $12,344 $12,246 -$97.51 -0.8%
Per acre $4,704 $4,666 -$37.16 -0.8%
Per acre $2,375 $2,357 -$18.77 -0.8%
No charge No charge
Each $434 $476 $42.00 9.7%
Each $158 $173 $15.28 9.7%
Each $315 $346 $30.55 9.7%
Each $2,217 $2,432 $214.81 9.7%
Hour $291 $319 $28.20 9.7%
Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%

FEE DESCRIPTION
Banners
- Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard
Special Events/Parades
Block Party
Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE
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
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:

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
Single Family
Multi-Family
Storm Management Plan Fee
Public Works Staff Time
Technology Fee
972
CC 07/01/2025
972 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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.

FEE DESCRIPTION
Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee*
Density of Dwelling Units/Ac
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**
973
CC 07/01/2025
973 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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.
974
CC 07/01/2025
974 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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
975
CC 07/01/2025
975 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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
976
CC 07/01/2025
976 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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
977
CC 07/01/2025
977 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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). 978
CC 07/01/2025
978 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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% 979
CC 07/01/2025
979 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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
980
CC 07/01/2025
980 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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%
1 Based 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. 981
CC 07/01/2025
981 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective September 1, 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 Cost1Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
982
CC 07/01/2025
982 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective September 1, 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 Cost1Cost 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
983
CC 07/01/2025
983 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fee Effective September 1, 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 Cost1Cost 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. 984
CC 07/01/2025
984 of 1130

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 September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees

ELECTRICAL FEES
985
CC 07/01/2025
985 of 1130

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 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% 986
CC 07/01/2025
986 of 1130
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%

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
987
CC 07/01/2025
987 of 1130
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲
YOY %
▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Deck (wood) Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7%
Deck Railing Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7%
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%
988
CC 07/01/2025
988 of 1130
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲
YOY %
▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
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% 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%
989
CC 07/01/2025
989 of 1130
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲
YOY %
▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
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% 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%
990
CC 07/01/2025
990 of 1130
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲
YOY %
▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
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% 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 991
CC 07/01/2025
991 of 1130
Work Item Unit
FY 2024-25
Fee
FY 2025-26
Proposed Fee
YOY $ ▲
YOY %
▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 25-XXX
Fees Effective September 1, 2025
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
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 992
CC 07/01/2025
992 of 1130

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
993
CC 07/01/2025
993 of 1130

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.
994
CC 07/01/2025
994 of 1130

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
995
CC 07/01/2025
995 of 1130

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
996
CC 07/01/2025
996 of 1130

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:
997
CC 07/01/2025
997 of 1130

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.
998
CC 07/01/2025
998 of 1130

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
999
CC 07/01/2025
999 of 1130

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
1000
CC 07/01/2025
1000 of 1130

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
1001
CC 07/01/2025
1001 of 1130

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)
1002
CC 07/01/2025
1002 of 1130

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. 1003
CC 07/01/2025
1003 of 1130

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%
1004
CC 07/01/2025
1004 of 1130

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. 1005
CC 07/01/2025
1005 of 1130
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
1006
CC 07/01/2025
1006 of 1130
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
1007
CC 07/01/2025
1007 of 1130
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. 1008
CC 07/01/2025
1008 of 1130

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
1009
CC 07/01/2025
1009 of 1130

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% 1010
CC 07/01/2025
1010 of 1130
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
1011
CC 07/01/2025
1011 of 1130
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% 1012
CC 07/01/2025
1012 of 1130
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% 1013
CC 07/01/2025
1013 of 1130
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% 1014
CC 07/01/2025
1014 of 1130
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 1015
CC 07/01/2025
1015 of 1130
RESOLUTION NO. 25-026

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 September 1, 2025.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1
st day of July, 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
1016
CC 07/01/2025
1016 of 1130
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
1017
CC 07/01/2025
1017 of 1130

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
1018
CC 07/01/2025
1018 of 1130
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
1019
CC 07/01/2025
1019 of 1130

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
1020
CC 07/01/2025
1020 of 1130
1 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: June 26, 2025
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Re: Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update
Background:

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

Q1: The staff report states that "Engineering fees are typically adjusted annually by CCI and Budgeted Labor Costs." But in the redlined version of Engineering fees, it seems for some items the Labor Costs increased by 9.7%, but some are 0%. What are the reasons? Staff Response: Some Engineering fees remain at 0% because they are governed by specific update processes, such as separate Municipal Code requirements. Further explanation is provided in the response to Question 2.

Q2.1: I see that the Transportation Impact Fee and the Parkland Impact Fee have 0% increase. No increase due to CPI, CCPI or Labor Costs? Is that due to the condition when the fees are adopted? What's the process to make adjustments to CPI, CCI or Labor Costs? Staff Response: Per Cupertino Municipal Code Section 13.08.060, Parkland Dedication fees are based on the fair market value of land as determined by an annual appraisal. The April 2025 evaluation showed that land values remained relatively unchanged since the prior year; therefore, no adjustment was recommended. For the Transportation Impact Fee, staff determined that a further review is needed to assess appropriate adjustments. Until that review is complete, the fee will remain unchanged for FY 2025–26.

Q2.2: (additional): I found a footnote for the Park Land Dedication Fee: "* 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." So, the market land value has not changed for land in the past year? Staff Response: The change in approximate market value of land in Cupertino over the past year 1021
CC 07/01/2025
1021 of 1130
2 was negligible.

Q2.3: Can Park Land Dedication Fee be used only to purchase parkland or can it be used for improvement on parkland?
Staff Response: Park Land Dedication Fees must be used for acquisition of new park land, and/or the rehabilitation or development of park land in a manner that will accommodate more users.

Maintenance and operation of the parks is not a permitted use of these funds.

Q3: Some items have negative adjustments, such as Storm Drain Fees. What are the reasons?
Staff Response: Storm Drain Fees are adjusted by Construction Cost Index (CCI), which decreased by .79% during the last year.

Q4: The staff report states "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." So, the pension costs were not included in the past or has the pension cost increased? If the pension cost hasn't been included in the past, why include it now? Any change in city policy or state law? Staff Response: In prior years, the City’s proposed fee schedules did not always fully capture pension-related costs, especially the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL)because the schedules were finalized before the UAL figures were allocated in the following year’s budget process. This timing mismatch likely led to the low 1% fee increases in FY 2023 and FY 2025.

As highlighted in the chart below, labor cost adjustments have fluctuated: from FY 2018–2022, the average increase was around 8.5%, while the most recent four-year average (FY 2023–2026) is closer to 5.2%. These shifts reflect both changing economic conditions and city-initiated cost control measures.

This year, consistent with the Council-adopted User Fee Cost Recovery Policy (Resolution 24‑041), we’ve included UAL costs in full. The resulting 9.7% increase aligns with historical averages and ensures our fees responsibly reflect the true cost of service delivery. 1022
CC 07/01/2025
1022 of 1130
3 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 CPI Varied
based on
Fee Study

3.44% 3.55% 3.53% 2.91% 1.60% 5.20% 5.30% 2.40% 2.70%
CCI 3.50% 1.00% 6.30% 2.50% 9.80% 7.10% 0.70% -0.79%
S&B 11.20% 4.10% 4.00% 17.30% 5.70% 1.00% 9.00% 1.00% 9.70% Q5: Could you please include a table for comparison with FY 2023-24 Fee, before the 2023 policy change? If it is not too much trouble, please include a table from FY 2019-2020 to see historic trends.

Staff Response: The FY 2024-25 Fee Schedules, attached to this report, include the amount and percentage changes compared to FY 2023-24. The comprehensive fee study conducted in 2023 significantly restructured the fee schedules, making it challenging and resource intensive to develop a direct comparison table from FY 2019-20 to the proposed FY 2025-26. The substantial changes in fee structures and classifications over this period make a straightforward year-over-year comparison complex.

Q6: How does the City compared to other cities in terms of the cost recovery and annual inflationary factors?
Staff Response: The City’s approach aligns closely with best practices observed by other local agencies. Municipalities typically commission periodic user fee studies, both to determine the maximum legally permissible charge (in compliance with Propositions 218 and 26) and to ensure services are not inadvertently subsidizing general operations. These studies often evaluate full cost recovery, factoring in both direct and indirect expenses while recognizing that some services may remain partially subsidized based on policy goals
Fees are typically adjusted annually using one or more of the following indices:
- Consumer Price Index (CPI)
- Construction Cost Index (CCI)
- Labor and overhead cost growth
This indexing methodology is comparable to many local agencies and helps maintain fair and transparent fee structures that accurately reflect service delivery costs over time.

Additional Context:

While not all cities have a formal “Cost Recovery Policy” codified, many include descriptions of their cost recovery methodologies within fee schedules or related documents. Below are examples of fee schedules with embedded notes on their calculation methods:

Mountain View – Adopted a Citywide Master Fee Study on June 10, 2025; a large number of fees are doubling (see by clicking on Building Fees, Planning Fees, or Public Works Fees tabs).

Sunnyvale – “The City’s current fees and charges have been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy 7.1.1 (Fiscal-Long Range Goals and Financial Policies). Staff made the necessary adjustments to the proposed Fee Schedule to ensure that fees and charges are aligned 1023
CC 07/01/2025
1023 of 1130
4 with the actual cost of providing each service. The only exceptions are those that are legally limited, market-based, or subsidized for public purposes, such as the Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee - Average Fair Market fee that was reduced due to a recent land sale survey”- Fee Schedule Update Staff Report
Santa Clara – “During an annual review, each department recommends appropriate adjustments after considering the total costs to the City for each service provided. Costs include (1) personnel time (providing the service and collecting data), (2) equipment used, (3) material, service and supply costs, (4) department and City-wide overhead, and (5) any other costs that may be incurred that are directly related to the specific fees, rates or charges.” – Fee Schedule
Palo Alto – “As part of the annual budget process, the City’s Municipal Fees are reviewed to ensure that fees are set in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, in addition to the City of Palo Alto User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy” – Fee Schedule Morgan Hill – “Morgan Hill uses CPI for user fees (development services) and CCI for impact fees. Actual costs for certain fees.” -Dat Nguyen, Director of Finance Los Gatos – “Fee Schedule will be adjusted annually by the average Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor for the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area) for the calendar year and/or by the percentage increase in actual operating costs for the current year – whichever is greater” – Fee Schedule These references demonstrate that the City is neither alone nor out of step in its commitment to responsible, data-driven fee setting, and annual adjustment mechanisms.

Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:

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
Attachments Provided with Informational Memo:

K – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Redline) L – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Redline) M – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Redline) N – FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Redline) 1024
CC 07/01/2025
1024 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Abatement Fee Actual Cost *
All Municipal Code Parking Violations (including County and State fees) Each $80.90 $80.90 $82.81 $1.91 2.4% Animal Establishment Permit Each $360.52 $369.05 $34.51 10.3% Commercial Kennel Permit $334.54
Private Kennel $334.54
Pet Shop $334.54
Grooming Business $334.54
Horse Establishment $334.54
Annual Lobbyist Registration Fee Per Lobbyist $198.24 $290.00 $296.86 $98.62 49.7% Bingo Permit Annual $201.60 $255.37 $261.41 $59.81 29.7% Business License Database Each $24.39 $29.72 $30.42 $6.03 24.7% Candidate Statement Fee (County Regulated Fee) Each Current County Registrar Cost
Current County
Registrar Cost
Current County
Registrar Cost
City Administrative Fee Each 15% 15% 15%
Code Enforcement Actual Cost *
Abatement/Graffiti Cleanup Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Hourly rate Hourly $240.35 $246.04
Substandard Housing Re-Inspection Each $240.35 $246.04
Community Festivals - One-time Business License (correction) Each $12.59 $12.59 $12.88 $0.30 2.4% Community Festivals - Business Partners Each $64.20 $64.20 $65.72 $1.52 2.4% Community Festivals - Additional 10' x 10' space (includes an additional table a Each $11.58 $11.58 $11.85 $0.27 2.4% Community Festivals - Non-profit partners Each $11.58 $11.58 $11.85 $0.27 2.4% Compilation of New Records Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Credit Card Transaction Fee Each 3.40% 3.40%
CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin Fee (State Regulated Fee) Each $33.38 $25.00 $25.00 -$8.38 -25.1% Damage to City Property
Grounds, Streets, Facilities, Traffic Engineering/Maintenance Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee Annual $255.53 $480.70 $492.07 Sign Each $24.90 $24.90
Duplicate Business Licenses Each $12.84 $14.86 $15.21 $2.37 18.5% Event Video Taping/Editing Each Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * False Alarms Each $97.60 $118.86 $121.68 $24.08 24.7%
Farmers Market Each $3.21 $3.21 $3.29 $0.08 2.4%
Fingerprinting Processing (State Fee $32 plus County Fee $20) Each $66.78 $71.40 $73.09 $6.31 9.4% Flea Markets Each $13.62 $13.62 $13.94 $0.32 2.4%
Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps
Plotted maps Per Map $35.96 $36.24 $37.10 $1.14 3.2%
Printed maps Per Map $2.64 $4.83 $4.95 $2.31 87.6%
Custom request maps Per Map Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Prints/plots of aerial photography (see Engineering fees) Per Map Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Actual Cost * Handbill Permit Each $158.68 $240.35 $246.04 $87.36 55.1% Renewals Each $79.34 $120.17 $123.02 $43.68 55.1%
Internet Processing Fee $2.64
Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices Each 12% per annum 12% per annum 12% per annum Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting/background check and business start-up inspection) Each $357.04 $540.79 $553.58 $196.55 55.0% Renewals (Includes two inspections per year) Each $119.42 $180.26 $184.53 $65.10 54.5% Massage Managing Employee (Includes fingerprint/background check) Each $317.17 $480.70 $492.07 $174.90 55.1% Renewals Each $119.42 $180.26 $184.53 $65.10 54.5%
Massage Permit Appeal (Denial/Revocation) Each $793.57 $1,201.75 $1,230.18 $436.61 55.0% Microfilm/Microfiche Printout $0.68
Municipal Code Book Per Book Vendor Invoice Vendor Invoice Vendor Invoice New Business Monthly Reports Each $44.94 $44.57 $45.63 $0.69 1.5% Noise Variances/Special Exceptions Each $246.54 $246.54 $252.38 $5.83 2.4% Notary Fee (State Regulated Fee) Per Signature $15.00/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
Vendor Invoice + City
Admin Fee
Petitions for Reconsideration Each $369.81 $367.36 $376.05 $6.24 1.7% Permit Update Each $120.17 $123.02
1025
CC 07/01/2025
1025 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule A - General
Fee Description Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Photocopies - per sheet
Standard sizes Per Page $0.29 $0.29 $0.30 $0.01 3.2%
For 11 x 17 sizes or color sheets Per Page $0.67 $0.67 $0.69 $0.01 2.2% For Large format prints Per Page $33.57 $33.57 $34.36 $0.79 2.4% Fair Political Practices Commission Per Page $0.12 $0.10 $0.10 -$0.01 -11.6% Fair Political Practices Commission (older than five (5) years) Per Page $5.79 $5.00 $5.12 -$0.67 -11.6% Property Liens Administrative Fee Each $53.93 $240.35 $246.04 $192.11 356.2% Returned Check Charge (State Regulated) $33.38
First returned check Each $25.00 $25.00
Subsequent checks Each $35.00 $35.00
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) (All except Political Signs) Each $6.42 $180.26 $25.00 $18.58 289.1% Sign Recovery Fee for Political Signs Each $3.85 $180.26 $25.00 $21.15 549.7% Small Income Business License Each $89.89 $89.89 $92.02 $2.13 2.4% Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting) Each $317.37 $480.70 $492.07 $174.70 55.0% Renewals Each $79.62 $120.17 $123.02 $43.40 54.5%
Taxi Driver Permit (Includes fingerprinting/background check) Each $414.76 $961.40 $984.14 $569.38 137.3% Renewals Each $79.62 $120.17 $123.02 $43.40 54.5%
Tobacco Retailer (County Regulated Fee)
Application Fee Each Current County Cost Current County Cost Current County Cost Annual Fee Annual Current County Cost Current County Cost Current County Cost Trash Fees
Plan Review - Trash Enclosure No Charge
Plan Review - Trash Management Plan No Charge
Williamson Act Filings Each $142.53 $142.53 $145.91 $3.37 2.4% Use Permit
Application / Processing $1,289.23
Non-Conforming Use $344.14
Video/Audio Service
DVD/CD Each $26.97 $25.16 $25.76 -$1.21 -4.5%
Flash Drive Each $16.70 $27.16 $27.80 $11.11 66.5%
* Actual cost is: 1) Fully burdened employee costs as calculated through the 2023 Cost Allocation Plan, Employee hourly rate plus 55% for benefits and overhead, and 2) cost of materials, contractors, and supplies.
1026
CC 07/01/2025
1026 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Each $647 $602 $608 -$39.58 -6.1%
Each $447 $416 $420 -$26.54 -5.9%
Each $1,115 $1,057 $1,068 -$47.18 -4.2%
Each Double the permit cost Double the permit cost Double the permit cost Each $2,228 $2,195 $2,217 -$10.96 -0.5%
Each $1,785 $1,729 $1,747 -$37.61 -2.1%
Each $3,601 $3,515 $3,551 -$50.09 -1.4%
Each/% of Project 5% of Project Costs and/or
$80 per inspection
5% of Project Costs and/or
$254 per inspection
5% of Project Costs and/or
$257 per inspection $177.00 221.3%
Per Permit $524 $523 $528 $4.22 0.8%
Each $1,415 $1,415
Each $1,376 $1,338 $1,352 -$24.34 -1.8%
Each/% of Improv.

Greater of $4,015 min. or
6% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $4,842 min. or
6% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $4891 or 6% of
cost of improvement
Each $8,170 $8,299 $8,383 $213.47 2.6%
Each $13,413 $13,549 $13,687 $273.39 2.0%
Each $1,218 $1,289 $1,302 $84.44 6.9%
Per Hour $279 $315 $318 $39.00 14.0%
Per Hour $279 $315 $318 $39.00 14.0%
Each/% of Improv.
greater of $5,392 min. or
5% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $5,598 min. or
5% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $5655 or 5% of
cost of improvement $263.00 $0.05
Each/% of Improv.
greater of $10,086 min. or
6% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $10,621 min. or
6% of cost of
improvement
Greater of $10729 or 5% of
cost of improvement $643.00 $0.06
Each $1,573 $1,589
Per Hour $188 $190
Each *Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
*Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
*Cost of review + City
Administrative Fee
Each $542 $629 $636 $93.86 17.3%
Each $2,948 $3,486 $3,522 $573.30 19.4%
Each $1,265 $3,935 $2,177 $911.98 72.1%
Each $1,265 $3,935 $2,177 $911.98 72.1%
Each $4,069 $4,173 $4,216 $146.67 3.6%
Per Unit $6,797/unit $6,797/unit $6,797 $0.00 0.0%
Per Unit $4,215/unit $4,215/unit $4,215 $0.00 0.0%
Per s.f. $10.94/s.f. $10.94/s.f. $11 $0.00 0.0%
Per s.f. $19.15/s.f. $19.15/s.f. $19 $0.00 0.0%
Per Room $3,728/room $3,728/room $3,728 $0.00 0.0%
Per trip $6,862/trip $6,862/trip $6,862 $0.00 0.0%
Each $16 $16 $16 $0.00 0.0%
Each $90 $90 $90 $0.00 0.0%
Per Hour $279/hr $315 $318
- Single
- Annual Utility Company
- Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination
(Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes)
- Retail
- Office
- Hotel
- Other (per PM trip)
Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee)
- Initial Review
- Finalize Certificates
Lot Line Adjustment
Transportation Impact Fee
- Single Family
- Multi-Family
- Commercial
Professional Services 3rd Party Consultant Review
*Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General Public Works Confirmation
Annexation (plus County filing fee)
Certificates of Compliance
Planning Application Review
VMT Monitoring Fee
Plan Check and Inspection
- Review of Building Permit Only 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
Crane Lift

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
1027
CC 07/01/2025
1027 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Each $741 $730 $738 -$3.20 -0.4%
Deposit $4,525 $4,525 $4,571 $46.46 1.0%
Each No Charge $1,338 No Charge
Each $3,091 $3,168 $3,200 $108.59 3.5%
Each $4,809 $4,930 $4,980 $171.19 3.6%
Each $2,518 $2,571 $2,597 $78.96 3.1%
Each $1,540 $1,594 $1,610 $70.00 4.5%
Each $1,155 $1,113 $1,125 -$30.21 -2.6%
Each $271 $297 $300 $29.52 10.9%
Each $1,540 $1,397 $1,411 -$128.75 -8.4%
Each $1,261 $1,138 $1,149 -$111.43 -8.8%
Each No Charge $39 $40 $40 -
Each $494 $462 $466 -$28.09 -5.7%
Dwelling unit $4,671/dwelling unit $4,671/dwelling unit $4,706.62 $35.62 0.8% Per acre $6,345/acre $6,345/acre $6,389.29 $44.29 0.7%
Per acre and $4,552/acre+ $4,552/acre+ $4,583.77 $31.77 0.7% Per unit $345/unit* $345/unit* $347.41 $2.41 0.7%
Per acre $12,258/acre $12,258/acre $12,343.56 $85.56 0.7% Per acre $4,671/acre $4,671/acre $4,703.60 $32.60 0.7%
Per acre $2,359/acre $2,359/acre $2,375.47 $16.47 0.7%
No charge No charge No charge
Each $355 $431 $434 $78.36 22.1%
Each $157 $158
Each $313 $315
Each $1,789 $2,202 $2,217 $428.42 24.0%
Hour $256/hr $288 $291 $35.02 13.7%
Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Public Works Staff Time
Technology Fee
Initial Inspection
Re-Inspection for Violations
Storm Management Plan Fee
Public Educational Uses
Public Facility Uses
Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial
Plan Review Fee
Single Family
Multi-Family
Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre.

Commercial and Industrial
Streamside Permit
Master Storm Drain Area Fees:

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
Permit Parking Study
- Application Phase
- Implementation phase
- Permit Parking Bi-annual Fee
- Application Phase
- Implementation phase
Certificate of Correction
Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review
Special Events/Parades
Block Party
Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE
- Summary Vacation
- Full Vacation
Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application

FEE DESCRIPTION
Banners
- Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard
1028
CC 07/01/2025
1028 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule B - Engineering
Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
$105,000/DU $105,000/DU $105,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$60,000/DU $60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$60,000/DU $60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$54,000/DU $54,000/DU $54,000/DU $0.00 0.0%
$30,000/DU $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
$15,000 or proportional
to the size of the main
DU, whichever is less
$0.00 0.0%
Each $515 $1,018 $513 -$2.55 -0.5%
Each Actual costs 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.

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.

New Public Tree Cost Schedule:

Public Tree Planting Cost:
24" Street Tree
36" Street Tree or Larger
1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming, or replanting will apply. $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree.
10 - 20
20+
Senior Citizen Housing Dev.

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 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.

Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee*
Density of Dwelling Units/Ac
0 - 5
5 - 10

FEE DESCRIPTION
1029
CC 07/01/2025
1029 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
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. 1030
CC 07/01/2025
1030 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
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
1031
CC 07/01/2025
1031 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
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
1032
CC 07/01/2025
1032 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
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
1033
CC 07/01/2025
1033 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
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).

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

KN. Extension Permit: A one-time one-year extension of the planning permit expiration date (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.

NR. 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 LO. Appeal: A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by the approval authority. Fee Exemption for:

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 M. Sign Permit: For signs that require a public meeting such as freeway oriented signage, electronic readerboard signs etc. (CMC Chapter 19.104) HI. Exceptions: An exception to the zoning standards for which an exception process and findings are identified in the Municipal Code. These include 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 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 E. Minor Architectural and Site Approval - Duplex/Residential: Architectural approval of single family homes in a planned development zoning district, G. Major Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of all other development projects (CMC Chapter 19.12).

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

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

F. Minor Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for IH. Minor Modification: An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing J. Project Review Meeting: Request for a one hour meeting by an applicant to review a project with City staff without any written feedback. 1034
CC 07/01/2025
1034 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description 1 Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Planning Staff Hourly Rate1 2 Per Hour $332 $287 $290 (42.00) -12.7% General Plan
Authorization Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Zoning
Zoning Map Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Text Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Single-Story Overlay District Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Study Session Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Subdivision
Parcel Map (See Definition A) Each $20,917 $27,117 $27,393 6,476.00 31.0% Tentative Map (See Definition B) Each $34,792 $46,604 $47,078 12,286.00 35.3% Conditional Use/Development Permit
Temporary Use Permit Each $4,639 $5,030 $5,081 442.00 9.5% Administrative Conditional Use Permit Each $7,682 $10,614 $10,722 3,040.00 39.6% Minor (See Definition C) Each $21,043 $25,496 $25,755 4,712.00 22.4% Major (See Definition D) Each $35,064 $38,905 $39,301 4,237.00 12.1% Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Minor (See Definition C) Each $9,666 $11,501 $11,618 1,952.00 20.2% Major (See Definition D) Each $17,654 $24,819 $25,071 7,417.00 42.0% Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Minor Duplex / Residential (See Definition E) Each $7,393 $10,584 $10,692 3,299.00 44.6% Minor (See Definition F) Each $14,557 $16,515 $16,683 2,126.00 14.6% Major (See Definition G) Each $21,667 $25,195 $25,451 3,784.00 17.5% Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Minor Residential Permit Each $3,796 $3,983 $4,024 228.00 6.0% Two-Story Permit without Design Review Each $4,929 $4,985 $5,035 106.00 2.2% Two-Story Permit with Design Review Each $5,915 $6,088 $6,149 234.00 4.0% Director Minor Modification (See Definition IH) Each $5,185 $5,441 $5,497 312.00 6.0% Ministerial Residential Permit
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit Each $4,322 $4,506 $4,551 229.00 5.3% Exceptions (See Definition H I )
Fence Exception - R1 & R2 Each $1,411 $4,626 $4,673 3,262.00 231.2% Fence Exception - Other Each $4,749 $5,132 $5,184 435.00 9.2% Sign Exception Each $5,405 $6,911 $6,981 1,576.00 29.2% R-1 Exception Each $7,677 $7,742 $7,821 144.00 1.9%
Heart of the City Exception Each $21,460 $24,873 $25,126 3,666.00 17.1% Hillside Exception Each $22,241 $23,724 $23,965 1,724.00 7.8% Exception - Other Each $7,408 $7,862 $7,942 534.00 7.2% Variance Each $8,489 $8,990 $9,081 592.00 7.0%
Reasonable Accommodation Each $1,232 $3,570 $1,803 571.00 46.3% Project Review Meeting (See Definition J) Per Review $2,478.98 $2,504.00 Preliminary Application Review (See Definition K)
Single Family Per Review $2,508.49 $2,534.00
Non-Residential (Retail/Industrial/Office/Hotel)
<10,000 sf Per Review $5,435.74 $5,491.00
>10,000 sf Per Review $9,454.37 $9,550.00
Residential / Mixed Use:

Duplex Per Review $1,971.46 $1,991.00
3-6 Units Per Review $8,688.72 $8,777.00
6-50 Units Per Review $13,412.54 $13,549.00
>50 Units Per Review $19,359.32 $19,556.00
1035
CC 07/01/2025
1035 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24 Total Cost FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $328 $1,260 $424 96.00 29.3%
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $165 $276 $167 2.00 1.2%
Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required)
First Tree Per Tree $492 $2,305 $776 284.00 57.7%
Each Additional Tree Per Tree $247 $950 $250 3.00 1.2%
Retroactive Tree Removal (per tree) Per Tree $5,464 $5,464 $5,520 56.00 1.0% Heritage Tree Designation Each $411 $4,182 $422 11.00 2.7% Tree Management Plan Each $7,724 $7,871 $7,951 227.00 2.9% Signs
Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition JL) Each $524 $547 $553 29.00 5.5% Sign Permit (See Definition M) Each $5,405 $6,911 $7,532 2,127.00 39.4% Sign Program Each $4,242 $4,411 $4,456 214.00 5.0%
Planning Commission Interpretation Each $7,822 $7,973 $8,054 232.00 3.0% Extension of Approved Entitlements (See Definition KN) Each $2,103 $2,082 $2,103 0.00 0.0% Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees) Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee) Each $379 $397 $401 22.00 5.8% Appeals (See Definition LO)
Planning Commission Each $379 $19,006 $505 126.00 33.2% City Council Each $379 $19,294 $505 126.00 33.2%
Miscellaneous Fees
Legal Noticing Fee (See Definition MP) Each $440 $521 $527 87.00 19.8% Mercury News Ad Each Acutal Cost + Admin
Fee Actual Cost + Admin Fee Actual Cost + Admin Fee
Zoning Verification Letter Each $555 $577 $583 28.00 5.0% Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License) Each $279 $288 $291 12.00 4.3% Short-Term Rental Each $232 $405 $409 177.00 76.3%
Mobile Vending Registration Fee Each $332 $543 $548 216.00 65.1% Special Events (See Definition Q) Sition Qe Def
Large Event Each $4,836.63 $4,886.00
Small Event Each $2,161.79 $500.00
Planning Inspection Per Inspection $425.43 $430.00
Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Fees Assessed at Building Permit Issuance with Building Permits Wireless Master Plan Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) Equipment Mounted on Existing Light/Utility Pole Each $10.18 $10.18 $10.28 0.10 1.0% New Personal Wireless Facility (not mounted on light/utility pole) Each $2,218 $2,218 $2,241 23.00 1.0% Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) All Non-Residential and Multi-Family (per sq.ft.) Per s.f. $0.49 $1.50 $1.52 1.03 209.4% Residential Single Family (per sq. ft.) Per s.f. $0.24 $1.50 $1.52 1.28 535.4% General Plan Office Allocation Fee (per sq. ft.) Per s.f. $0.45 $1.50 $1.52 1.07 235.8% 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
1036
CC 07/01/2025
1036 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule C - Planning
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 2 3
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees 2 (See Definition N R ) Residential - Ownership (per sq. ft.)
Detached Single Family Residence Per s.f. $21.36 $21.36 $21.87 0.51 2.4% Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome Per s.f. $23.49 $23.49 $24.05 0.56 2.4% Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $28.48 $28.48 $29.15 0.67 2.4%
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $28.48 $28.48 $29.15 0.67 2.4%
Residential - Rental (per sq. ft.)
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $28.48 $28.48 $29.15 0.67 2.4%
Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac)
Per s.f. $35.60 $35.60 $36.44 0.84 2.4%
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Office, Research and Development, or Industrial Per s.f. $33.76 $33.76 $34.55 0.80 2.4% Hotel Per s.f. $16.88 $16.88 $17.28 0.40 2.4%
Self-storage, employee unit provided Per s.f. $0.63 $0.63 $0.65 0.01 2.4% Self-storage, employee unit not provided Per s.f. $1.33 $1.33 $1.36 0.03 2.4% Warehouse Per s.f. $46.89 $46.89 $48.00 1.11 2.4%
Commercial/Retail Per s.f. $14.24 $14.24 $14.58 0.34 2.4% 1 Based on 201623 Fee and Cost Allocation Plan Study by Matrix Consulting 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. 12 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 2 3
All 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 Non1 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 pe 1037
CC 07/01/2025
1037 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fee Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
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 $117 $4,162 $3,918 $110.97 $116.14
1,250 $233 $5,271 $4,962 $110.97 $125.36
2,500 $233 $6,658 $6,529 $88.78 $4.67
5,000 $350 $8,878 $6,529 $22.19 $34.82
12,500 $350 $10,542 $9,141 $19.98 $30.18
25,000 $467 $13,039 $12,797 $52.16 $53.06
A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $233 $3,329 $3,918 $41.62 $76.96 2,500 $467 $4,162 $5,223 $44.39 $73.13
5,000 $467 $5,271 $7,052 $38.84 $4.67
10,000 $700 $7,213 $7,052 $7.40 $19.15
25,000 $700 $8,323 $9,924 $7.77 $16.60
50,000 $934 $10,265 $13,842 $20.53 $29.55
B Business 1,000 $233 $5,271 $5,746 $34.68 $51.54
5,000 $467 $6,658 $7,574 $38.84 $47.01
10,000 $467 $8,600 $9,924 $30.52 $25.84
20,000 $700 $11,652 $12,275 $6.47 $6.09
50,000 $700 $13,594 $14,103 $6.66 $11.44
100,000 $934 $16,923 $19,588 $16.92 $20.52
B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $117 $4,162 $3,134 $92.48 $118.55 1,500 $233 $5,271 $4,440 $92.48 $69.65
3,000 $233 $6,658 $5,485 $83.23 $3.89
6,000 $350 $9,155 $5,485 $15.41 $26.12
15,000 $350 $10,542 $7,835 $16.65 $19.93
30,000 $467 $13,039 $10,708 $43.46 $37.25
E Educational 100 $117 $4,162 $3,134 $277.43 $290.35
500 $233 $5,271 $4,179 $277.43 $313.40
1,000 $233 $6,658 $5,746 $249.69 $11.67
2,000 $350 $9,155 $5,746 $46.24 $78.35
5,000 $350 $10,542 $8,096 $49.94 $65.02
10,000 $467 $13,039 $11,230 $130.39 $116.97
E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $117 $3,052 $3,134 $208.08 $225.05 500 $233 $3,884 $3,918 $221.95 $261.17
1,000 $233 $4,994 $5,223 $166.46 $11.67
2,000 $350 $6,658 $5,223 $36.99 $69.65
5,000 $350 $7,768 $7,313 $38.84 $59.79
10,000 $467 $9,710 $10,186 $97.10 $106.52
F Factory Industrial 1,000 $233 $5,826 $6,007 $20.81 $45.01 5,000 $467 $6,658 $7,574 $33.29 $47.01
10,000 $467 $8,323 $9,924 $36.07 $25.84
20,000 $700 $11,930 $12,275 $5.55 $6.09
50,000 $700 $13,594 $14,103 $3.33 $11.44
100,000 $934 $15,259 $19,588 $15.26 $20.52
F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $233 $4,716 $4,701 $27.74 $45.01 5,000 $467 $5,826 $6,268 $33.29 $41.79
10,000 $467 $7,491 $8,357 $27.74 $2.33
20,000 $700 $10,265 $8,357 $5.55 $11.32
50,000 $700 $11,930 $11,753 $5.55 $9.87
100,000 $934 $14,704 $16,454 $14.70 $17.39
H High Hazard 100 $117 $5,826 $4,179 $346.79 $355.64
500 $233 $7,213 $5,485 $443.89 $313.40
1,000 $233 $9,433 $7,052 $332.92 $11.67
2,000 $350 $12,762 $7,052 $73.98 $95.76
5,000 $350 $14,981 $9,924 $72.13 $80.69
10,000 $467 $18,588 $13,842 $185.88 $143.09
H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $117 $3,329 $3,134 $208.08 $290.35 500 $233 $4,162 $4,179 $277.43 $313.40
1,000 $233 $5,549 $5,746 $194.20 $11.67
2,000 $350 $7,491 $5,746 $46.24 $78.35
5,000 $350 $8,878 $8,096 $38.84 $65.02
10,000 $467 $10,820 $11,230 $108.20 $116.97
I Institutional 500 $233 $6,658 $4,440 $83.23 $90.02
2,500 $467 $8,323 $6,007 $99.88 $73.13
5,000 $467 $10,820 $7,835 $77.68 $4.67
10,000 $700 $14,704 $7,835 $16.65 $22.63
25,000 $700 $17,201 $11,230 $16.65 $17.65
50,000 $934 $21,362 $15,409 $42.72 $32.69
I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $117 $4,162 $3,134 $277.43 $290.35 500 $233 $5,271 $4,179 $277.43 $261.17
1,000 $233 $6,658 $5,485 $249.69 $11.67
Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2
1038
CC 07/01/2025
1038 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fee Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
2,000 $350 $9,155 $5,485 $46.24 $78.35
5,000 $350 $10,542 $7,835 $49.94 $59.79
10,000 $467 $13,039 $10,708 $130.39 $111.75
M Mercantile 2,000 $350 $7,768 $6,529 $27.74 $27.23
10,000 $700 $9,988 $8,357 $27.74 $28.73
20,000 $700 $12,762 $11,230 $22.19 $1.75
40,000 $1,050 $17,201 $11,230 $5.09 $7.84
100,000 $1,050 $20,253 $15,931 $4.99 $6.62
200,000 $1,400 $25,246 $22,200 $12.62 $11.80
M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $233 $3,329 $3,656 $69.36 $128.27 1,500 $467 $4,162 $4,962 $92.48 $104.47
3,000 $467 $5,549 $6,529 $64.73 $7.78
6,000 $700 $7,491 $6,529 $15.41 $31.92
15,000 $700 $8,878 $9,402 $12.95 $24.19
30,000 $934 $10,820 $12,797 $36.07 $45.77
R-1 Residential—Hotels & Motels 3,000 $350 $9,155 $7,574 $20.81 $22.51 15,000 $700 $11,652 $9,924 $22.19 $20.89
30,000 $700 $14,981 $13,059 $17.57 $1.17
60,000 $1,050 $20,253 $13,059 $3.70 $6.09
150,000 $1,050 $23,582 $18,543 $3.88 $5.11
300,000 $1,400 $29,408 $25,856 $9.80 $9.09
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $233 $7,213 $6,007 $60.69 $64.43 4,000 $467 $9,155 $7,835 $69.36 $58.76
8,000 $467 $11,930 $10,186 $52.02 $2.92
16,000 $700 $16,091 $10,186 $11.56 $17.41
40,000 $700 $18,865 $14,364 $11.79 $14.95
80,000 $934 $23,582 $20,110 $29.48 $26.30
R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $233 $277 $6,007 $0.00 $64.43 - Repeat Unit 4,000 $467 $277 $7,835 $0.00 $58.76
8,000 $467 $277 $10,186 $0.00 $2.92
16,000 $700 $277 $10,186 $1.16 $17.41
40,000 $700 $555 $14,364 $0.00 $14.95
80,000 $934 $555 $20,110 $0.69 $26.30
R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes, Models, 1,000 $233 $5,271 $6,268 $18.50 $52.23 First Master Plan 2,500 $233 $5,549 $7,052 $73.98 $52.23 4,000 $233 $6,658 $7,835 $13.87 $76.96
6,000 $467 $6,936 $9,141 $55.49 $26.12
8,000 $467 $8,046 $9,663 $13.87 $76.96
10,000 $700 $8,323 $10,969 $83.23 $116.69
R-3 Dwellings—Production Phase 1,000 $117 $555 $4,440 $0.00 $112.25 of Master Plan (Repeats) 2,500 $233 $555 $6,007 $18.50 $121.88 4,000 $233 $832 $7,835 $13.87 $11.67
6,000 $467 $1,110 $7,835 $13.87 $169.76
8,000 $467 $1,387 $11,230 $13.87 $220.61
10,000 $700 $1,665 $15,409 $16.65 $161.09
R-3 Group Care 1,000 $233 $6,104 $6,007 $41.62 $58.07
5,000 $467 $7,768 $8,096 $44.39 $47.01
10,000 $467 $9,988 $10,447 $36.07 $2.33
20,000 $700 $13,594 $10,447 $7.40 $14.80
50,000 $700 $15,814 $14,887 $7.77 $11.96
100,000 $934 $19,698 $20,632 $19.70 $21.57
R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 80 $233 $2,497 $3,395 $173.40 $326.46 400 $233 $3,052 $4,440 $208.08 $326.46
800 $233 $3,884 $5,746 $173.40 $29.18
1,600 $467 $5,271 $5,746 $34.68 $108.82
4,000 $467 $6,104 $8,357 $41.62 $77.66
8,000 $700 $7,768 $11,230 $97.10 $149.13
S Storage 600 $233 $4,716 $4,179 $57.80 $64.14
3,000 $467 $6,104 $5,485 $55.49 $60.94
6,000 $467 $7,768 $7,313 $46.24 $3.89
12,000 $700 $10,542 $7,313 $9.25 $17.41
30,000 $700 $12,207 $10,447 $10.17 $13.84
60,000 $934 $15,259 $14,364 $25.43 $25.50
S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 600 $233 $3,884 $3,918 $46.24 $64.14 3,000 $467 $4,994 $5,223 $46.24 $60.94
6,000 $467 $6,381 $7,052 $36.99 $3.89
12,000 $700 $8,600 $7,052 $7.71 $15.96
30,000 $700 $9,988 $9,924 $8.32 $13.84
60,000 $934 $12,485 $13,842 $20.81 $24.63
U Accessory 40
200
400
1039
CC 07/01/2025
1039 of 1130
City of Cupertino, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fee Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees
800
1,000 $233 $2,219 $3,656 $27.74 $168.37
2,000 $350 $2,497 $5,223 $41.62 $110.30
4,000 $467 $3,329 $7,313 $83.23 $194.49
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $233 $2,774 $3,918 $27.74 $76.96 w/o Podium 2,500 $467 $3,329 $5,223 $44.39 $62.68
5,000 $467 $4,439 $6,790 $33.29 $4.67
10,000 $700 $6,104 $6,790 $5.55 $19.15
25,000 $700 $6,936 $9,663 $6.66 $15.56
50,000 $934 $8,600 $13,320 $17.20 $28.51
Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $233 $3,052 $4,179 $41.62 $76.96 with Podium 2,500 $467 $3,884 $5,485 $44.39 $73.13
5,000 $467 $4,994 $7,313 $33.29 $4.67
10,000 $700 $6,658 $7,313 $7.40 $20.89
25,000 $700 $7,768 $10,447 $7.77 $16.60
50,000 $934 $9,710 $14,364 $19.42 $30.60
All Shell Buildings 500 $233 $3,329 $3,656 $41.62 $76.96 2,500 $467 $4,162 $4,962 $55.49 $62.68
5,000 $467 $5,549 $6,529 $38.84 $4.67
10,000 $700 $7,491 $6,529 $9.25 $19.15
25,000 $700 $8,878 $9,402 $7.77 $14.51
50,000 $934 $10,820 $12,797 $21.64 $27.46
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. 1040
CC 07/01/2025
1040 of 1130
FY 2023-24 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT Fee Total Cost Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

STAND ALONE M/E/P PERMIT FEES
Travel and Documentation each $82
Permit Issuance each $62

MECHANICAL FEES
Mechanical Permit Fee per hour $82 $263 $266 184.00 224.4% Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Other Mechanical Inspections (hourly rate) per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% MECHANICAL UNIT FEES:

Install/Relocate forced air furnace or burner (including attached ducts and vents) up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (each)
up to and including 100,000 Btu/h each $243
over 100,000 Btu/h each $243
Install/Relocate floor furnace, including vent (each) each $121 Install or relocate suspended heater, recessed wall heater, or floor-mounted unit Residential each $121
Commercial each $243
Install, relocate or replace appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit
Residential each $121
Commercial each $243
Repair/Alter/Add heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, mini-split system/heat pump, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls and/or ducts Residential each $121
Commercial each $243
Install or relocate boiler or compressor
up to and including 3HP, or absorption system up to and including 100,000 each $243 over 3HP and up to and including 15 HP, or absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h and up to and including 500,000 Btu/h each $243
over 15 HP and up to and including 30 HP, or absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h and up to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h each $305

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees 1041
CC 07/01/2025
1041 of 1130
FY 2023-24 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT Fee Total Cost Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees over 30 HP and up to and including 50 HP, or absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h and up to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h each $305 over 50 HP, or absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h each $364 Air-handling unit, including attached ducts. (Note: this fee shall not apply to an airhandling unit that is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere) Residential each $121
Commercial each $364
Air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM each $243
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct each $121
Ventilation system that is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit each $182
Install or relocate HVAC system or portion there of
Residential each $259 $261
Commercial each $388 $392
Hood installation that is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood
Residential each $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3%
Commercial each $364 $517 $522 158.00 43.4%
Any other piece of equipment or appliance not listed in Mechanical schedule.

Appliance or piece of equipment not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed
each $182 $259 $261 79.00 43.4%
Electrical Permit Fee per hourEach $82 $263 $266 184.00 224.4% Electrical Plan Check per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Electrical Inspections per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% ELECTRICAL UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Rewire (up to 2500 sq ft) each $486 $517 $522 36.00 7.4% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters
First 20 first 20 $82 $86 $87 5.00 6.1%
Each Additional each $7 $9 $9 2.00 28.6%

ELECTRICAL FEES
1042
CC 07/01/2025
1042 of 1130
FY 2023-24 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT Fee Total Cost Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp-holding devices First 20 first 20 $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3%
Each Additional each $9 $9 $9 0.00 0.0%
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each $26 $30 $30 4.00 15.4% Theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies each $24 Appliances (Install / Repair / Replace)
Residential each $44 $44
Commercial each $85 $86 Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wallmounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; selfcontained room console or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating
each $40
Residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, nonresidential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (kW), or kilovoltampere (kVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment each $82
Power Apparatus - Generator/Transformer or Similar (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential each $259 $261
Commercial each $388 $392
Motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus. Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (kW), or kilovolt-amperes (kVA), or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (kVAR) each $243
Busways
Trolley and plug-in-type busways each 100 lf $121
Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees
Supplied from one branch circuit each $82
Additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system, or marquee
each $40
Services (including Temporary Power)
600 volts or less, up to 200 amperes in rating each $82 $86 $87 5.00 6.1% 600 volts or less, 201 to 1000 amperes in rating each $121 $259 $261 140.00 115.7% Over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating each $243 $388 $392 149.00 61.3% Any other Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors not listed in Electrical Schedule. Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required, but for which no fee is herein set forth
each $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4%
1043
CC 07/01/2025
1043 of 1130
FY 2023-24 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT Fee Total Cost Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees

PLUMBING/GAS FEES
Plumbing/Gas Permit Fee per hourEach $82 $263 $266 184.00 224.4% Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check per hourEach $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections per hourEach $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% PLUMBING/GAS UNIT FEES:

Residential Whole-House Water Re-Pipelumbing (up to 2500 sq ft) each $486 $517 $522 36.00 7.4% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap, including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection each $16
Building sewer lateral (Install / Repair / Replace) or sewer clean-out Residential each $62 $65 $65 3.00 4.8%
Commercial each $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3%
Sewer Clean-out (Install/Repair/Replace)
Residential each $65 $65
Commercial each $129 $131
Building Drain/Waste/Vent Repair
Residential per fixture $18 $18
Commercial per fixture $26 $26
Rainwater system inside building per drain $16
Private sewage disposal system each $243
Water Heater Replacement / Installation - All Types (Gas or Solar) and/or Vent Residential each $62 $65 $65 3.00 4.8%
Commercial each $182 $194 $196 14.00 7.7%
Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps Interceptors - Grease/Sand (Install/Repair/Replace)
each $182 $194 $196 14.00 7.7%
Install, alter or repair water piping and/or water treating equipment Water Treatment System (Install/Repair/Replace) each $82 $86 $87 5.00 6.1% Repair/Alter drainage or vent piping each fixture $82
Lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices each $121 Backflow devices not included in other fee services (e.g., building/trailer park each $121 Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in other fee services (e.g., building/trailer park sewer) each 5 $121
Gas piping (Install/Repair/Replace) system per outlet each 4 $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% Water Service Install or Replace Water Meter / Service each $62 $65 $65 3.00 4.8% Partial Water Re-pipe
Residential per fixture $24 $26 $26 2.00 8.3%
Commercial per fixture $15 $17 $17 2.00 13.3%
Any other device/fixture not listed in Plumbing Schedule (Install/Repair/Replace) each $129 $131 1044
CC 07/01/2025
1044 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲
Standard Hourly Rate - Building Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Accessibility Hardship Exemption 1 hour Each $243 $275 $277 34.00 14.0% Acoustical Review
Single Family Home/Duplex—New Each $608 $649 $655 47.00 7.7% Single Family Home/Duplex—Addition/Alteration Each $364 $382 $386 22.00 6.0% Multi-Family/Commercial Each $608 $649 $655 47.00 7.7%
Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) up to 250 sf Each $487 $2,428 $1,159 672.00 138.0% Plan Check Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) 251-499 sf Each $971 $4,625 $2,236 1,265.00 130.3% Plan Check Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $5,724 $2,767
Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.) up to 250 sf Each $1,213 $3,103 $1,874 661.00 54.5% Inspection Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.) 251-499 sf Each $1,456 $4,137 $2,392 936.00 64.3% Inspection Fees (500-999 sq. ft.) Each $5,171 $2,990
Accessory Buildings - Residential
Accessory Buildings (Up to 499 sq. ft.) Each $1,699 $1,716 Accessory Buildings (500 - 999 sq. ft.) Each $2,491 $2,516 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Plan Check Fees
Plan Check Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) up to 499 sf Each $971 $2,428 $2,453 1,482.00 152.6% Plan Check Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) 500-999 sf Each $1,940 $3,527 $3,563 1,623.00 83.7% Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Inspection Fees
Inspection Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.) up to 499 sf Each $1,456 $2,585 $2,612 1,156.00 79.4% Inspection Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.) 500-999 sf Each $2,423 $3,620 $3,656 1,233.00 50.9% Address Assignment Per hour $243 $231 $233 (10.00) -4.1% Board of Appeals Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5%
Clerical Fee 1/2 hour $121 $116 $117 (4.00) -3.3%
Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Per hour $243 $253 $255 12.00 4.9% Antenna—Telecom Facility
Radio Each $608 $454 $458 (150.00) -24.7%
Cellular/Mobile Phone, alterations to existing facility Each $486 $649 $655 169.00 34.8% Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing Each $1,335 $2,248 $2,271 936.00 70.1% Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building Each $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1% Arbor/Trellis Each $487 $649 $655 168.00 34.5%
Awning/Canopy (supported by building) Each $487 $649 $655 168.00 34.5% Balcony Addition Each $1,094 $1,572 $1,588 494.00 45.2% Battery Energy Storage System up to three (3) $243 $649 $655 412.00 169.5% Each Additional Each $121 $382 $386 265.00 219.0%
Below Market Rate
Escrow Inspection % of Sale Price 0.52% 0.52%
Carport Each $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8%
Certifications
Special Inspector Qualifications (initial review) Each $487 $506 $511 24.00 4.9% Special Inspector Qualifications (renewal / update) Each $243 $231 $233 (10.00) -4.1% Chimney (new) Each $729 $907 $916 187.00 25.7%
Chimney Repair Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
1045
CC 07/01/2025
1045 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Close Existing Openings
Interior wall Each $486
Exterior wall Each $729
Commercial Coach (per unit) Each $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1% Covered Porch Each $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8%
Deck (wood) Each $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8%
Deck Railing Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%
Deferred Submittal (2 hour minimum) based on work item $255 $266 Demolition
Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Each base $608 $764 $772 164.00 27.0% Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $243 $267 $269 26.00 10.7% Residential (R-3 Occ) (up to 3,000 sf) Each base $487 $764 $772 285.00 58.5% Residential (R-3 Occ) (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $243 $267 $269 26.00 10.7% Swimming Pool Residential Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf) Each base $729 $770 $778 49.00 6.7% Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Disabled Access Compliance Inspection Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Door
New door (non structural) Each $364 $382 $386 22.00 6.0% New door (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $487 $649 $655 168.00 34.5% Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Each $121 $116 $117 (4.00) -3.3% Electric Vehicle Charging Station Each $243 $382 $266 23.00 9.5% Extensions
Plan Check Applications (within 180 days of Submittal) 1 hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Permits (within 180 days of Issuance)
Start construction, without plans 1/2 hour $121 $137 $139 18.00 14.9% Resume or complete construction, without plans 1/2 hour $121 $137 $139 18.00 14.9% Start construction, with plans 1 hour $243 $275 $277 34.00 14.0% Resume or complete construction, with plans 2 hours $486 $549 $555 69.00 14.2% Fence
Non-masonry, over 7 feet in height up to 100 l.f. $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Non-masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% Masonry, over 7 feet in height up to 100 l.f. $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8% Masonry, each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $487 $517 $522 35.00 7.2% Fireplace
Masonry Each $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8%
Pre-Fabricated/Metal Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%
Flag pole (over 20 feet in height) Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Foundation Repair Each $1,094 $1,166 $1,178 84.00 7.7%
1046
CC 07/01/2025
1046 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Garage / Agricultural Buildings
Wood frame up to 1,000 sf Each $1,577
Masonry up to 1,000 sf Each $2,066
Green Building Deposit - Third Party Certification Process Single-Family Residential sf $2/sf, $1,000 max.
2/sf, $20,000 min;
$40,000 max.
2/sf, $35,000 min;
$75,000 max.

Inspections
Pre-Inspection Fee Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5%
Standard Inspection Hourly Rate Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Progress Inspection Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5%
Partial Inspection Per hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5%
Courtesy Inspection - 2 hour minimum Per hour 486 or 2 hr min. $256 $266 23.00 9.5% Cancelled inspection w/out advance notice 1 Per hour $243 $256 $266 23.00 9.5% Reinspection 1 Per hour $243 $256 $266 23.00 9.5%
Outside of normal business hours (24 hour minimum) Per hour 486 or 2 hr min. $305 $308 65.00 26.7% 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 $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% Each Additional hour Per hour $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Life Safety Report Each $1,456
Lighting pole Each $608 $649 $655 47.00 7.7%
each additional pole Each $243 $267 $269 26.00 10.7%
Modular Structures Each $1,094 $923 $933 (161.00) -14.7% Modification of Technical Code 1 hour $243 $263 $266 23.00 9.5% Occupancy
Certificate of Occupancy/Completion Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Temporary Occupancy Permit Per six months $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Partition—Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) up to 30 l.f. $729 $778 $786 57.00 7.8% Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Partition—Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) up to 30 l.f. $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Additional partition Each 30 l.f. $121 $259 $261 140.00 115.7% Patio Cover / Gazebo
Wood frame up to 300 sf $584 $923 $933 349.00 59.8%
Metal frame up to 300 sf $584 $923 $933 349.00 59.8%
Other frame up to 300 sf $816 $923 $933 117.00 14.3%
Additional patio Each 300 sf $350 $396 $400 50.00 14.3% Enclosed prefabricated Sun Room up to 300 sf $816 $907 $916 100.00 12.3% Additional Sun Rooms Each 300 sf $467
Non-Residential sf
Multi-Family Residential sf
1047
CC 07/01/2025
1047 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Photovoltaic System
Residential:

Systems up to 15kW Each $427 $450 $450 23.00 5.4%
Each Additional kW Above 15kW Each Addl kW $15 $15
Multi-Family and Commercial:

Multi-Family Res/Commercial, up to 8 kilowatts Systems up to 50kW up to 8 kW Each $608 $1,000 $1,000 392.00 64.5% Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt Each 1 addl kW $62 $7 $7 (55.00) -88.7% Each Additional kW Above 250kW Each addl kW $5 $5
Thermal System
Residential:

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

Systems up to 30kW Each $1,000 $1,000
Each Additional kW between 30kW and 260kW Each addl kW $7 $7 Each Additional kW Above 260kW Each addl kW $5 $5
Pile Foundation
Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles) up to 10 $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1% Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $729 $792 $800 71.00 9.7% Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete) up to 10 $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1% Additional Piles (increments of 10) Each 10 $729 $792 $800 71.00 9.7% Product Review Per hour $243 $253 $255 12.00 4.9%
Plan Review
Standard Plan Review Hourly Rate Per hour $243 $275 $277 34.00 14.0% Overtime Plan Review (2 4 hour minimum) Per hour 486 or 2 hr min. $321 $325 82.00 33.7% Pre-Submittal Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per hour 486 or 2 hr min. $275 $277 34.00 14.0% 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 Per hour $121 $275 $278 157.00 129.8% Each Additional hour Per hour $243
Pre-Construction Meeting Each $460 $446 $450 (10.00) -2.2% Remodel—Residential
Kitchen (up to 300 sq. ft.) up to 300 sf Each $971 $1,028 $1,039 68.00 7.0% Bath (up to 300 sq. ft.) up to 300 sf Each $971 $1,028 $1,039 68.00 7.0% Other Remodel (up to 300 sq. ft.) up to 300 sf Each $729 $907 $916 187.00 25.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 300) Each 300 sf Per sf $364 $2.26 $2.29 (361.71) -99.4% Other Remodel (1000 sq. ft.) 1000 sfEach $2,308 $2,491 $2,516 208.00 9.0% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 1000) Each 300 sf Per sf $364 $0.53 $0.53 (363.47) -99.9% Other Remodel (2500+ sq. ft.) 2500 sfEach $3,037 $3,282 $3,316 279.00 9.2% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 2500) Each 300 sf Per sf $364.00 $0.26 $0.27 (363.73) -99.9% Re-roof
Residential (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $26 $25 $25 (1.00) -3.8% Multi-Family Dwelling (maximum $500 per building) Each 100 sf $26 $25 $25 (1.00) -3.8% Commercial
Commercial (first 5,000 sf) Each $608 $633 $639 31.00 5.1% Commercial (each additional 2,500 sf) Each 2,500 sf $243 $259 $261 18.00 7.4% Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry)
Standard (up to 50 l.f.) up to 50 l.f. $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $729 $792 $800 71.00 9.7% Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) up to 50 l.f. $1,577 $1,715 $1,733 156.00 9.9% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $971 $1,050 $1,061 90.00 9.3% Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) up to 50 l.f. $1,821 $1,974 $1,994 173.00 9.5% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f. $1,213 $1,309 $1,322 109.00 9.0% 1048
CC 07/01/2025
1048 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 l.f.) up to 50 l.f. $1,577 $1,715 $1,733 156.00 9.9% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $971 $1,050 $1,061 90.00 9.3% Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.) up to 50 l.f. $1,821 $1,974 $1,994 173.00 9.5% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f. $1,213 $1,309 $1,322 109.00 9.0% Revisions Per hour $608 $259 $266
Commercial (New and Tenant Improvement) Each $1,094
Single Family Dwelling (New and Additions) Each $608
Remodel Each $487
Sauna—steam Each $850 $907 $916 66.00 7.8%
Siding
Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior) up to 400 sf $608 $633 $639 31.00 5.1% All Other up to 400 sf $487 $503 $508 21.00 4.3%
Additional siding Each 400 sf $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% Signs
Directional Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%
Each additional Directional Sign Each $243 $267 $269 26.00 10.7% Ground/Roof/Projecting Signs Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Master Plan Sign Check Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%
Rework of any existing Ground Sign Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Other Sign Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2%
Reinspection Fee Each $121 $122 $124 3.00 2.5%
Wall/Awning Sign, Non-Electric Each $364 $382 $386 22.00 6.0% Wall/Awning Sign, Electric Each $364 $511 $517 153.00 42.0% Shed over 120 square feet Each $1,094
Skylight
50 sf or less (cumulative area) Each $608 $511 $517 (91.00) -15.0% Greater than 50 sf or structural Each $850 $267 $269 (581.00) -68.4% Stairs—First Flight first flight Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Each additional flight Per flightEach addl $243 $267 $269 26.00 10.7% Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 l.f.) first 100 l.f. $608 $649 $655 47.00 7.7% each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) first 100 l.f. $608 $778 $786 178.00 29.3% each additional 100 l.f. Each 100 l.f. $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% Stucco Applications
Base up to 400 sf $487 $503 $508 21.00 4.3%
Additional Stucco Application Each 400 sf $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% 1049
CC 07/01/2025
1049 of 1130
Work Item Unit FY 2023-24 Fee FY 2023-24
Total Cost
FY 2024-25
Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲ YOY % ▲

CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
Resolution 24-XXX
Fees Effective July 14, 2024
Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items
Swimming Pool/Spa
Vinyl-lined Each $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1%
Fiberglass Each $1,094 $1,182 $1,194 100.00 9.1%
Gunite (up to 800 sf) Each $1,577 $1,699 $1,716 139.00 8.8% Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $364 $396 $400 36.00 9.9% Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) Each $2,672 $2,881 $2,910 238.00 8.9% Additional pool (over 800 sf) Each 100 sf $729 $792 $800 71.00 9.7% Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated) Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% 5.8%
Temporary Structures Each $729 $778 $786 57.00 7.8%
Tenant Improvement Preparation Each $487 $511 $517 30.00 6.2% Window or Sliding Glass Door
Replacement (first 8 windows) first 8 $364 $374 $378 14.00 3.8% Replacement (each additional 8 windows) Each 8 $121 $129 $131 10.00 8.3% New Window (non structural) Each $305 $320 $324 19.00 6.2% New window (structural shear wall/masonry) Each $426 $454 $458 32.00 7.5% Bay Window (structural) Each $426 $454 $458 32.00 7.5%
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 100% of Plan Review Fees Plan review more than 3 Business Days after the Date of Submittal No refund No refund Refunds - Building Permit Fees
No inspections and permit is active (not expired) 80% of permit fees 80% of permit fees No inspections and permit is expired No refund No refund Inspections were provided No refund No refund
Work without permit - based on current permit and plan check fees Double 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 1050
CC 07/01/2025
1050 of 1130
CC 05-06-2025
Item No. 10
Approval of Fiscal
Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee
Schedule Update
Written Communications
1051
CC 07/01/2025
1051 of 1130
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Rachelle Sander; Pamela Wu; City Clerk Subject: Fw: 05/01/25 Parks and Rec Commission - Fees for facility rentals.

Date: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:40:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident.] Dear Parks and Rec Commission and staff,
I am writing about agenda item 3 on the 05/01/25 parks and rec commission meeting on indoor facility rentals.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=A&ID=1239333&GUID=6E7FE416-3C4D-47CD-804C-917AA96C331C https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?
M=E1&ID=1239333&GUID=6E7FE416-3C4D-47CD-804C-917AA96C331C I urge the commission and staff to lower fees for residents and offset by raising the fees on non-residents and non-resident non-profits. I further urge the commission and staff to do likewise on all parks and rec programs, classes and memberships. The premium charged to non-residents is minimal today. The city is under no obligation to be subsidizing non-residents. Fee increases have been passed on equitably to residents and non-residents. Parks and rec popular offerings have seen increasing surge of demand. Please ask for metrics on residents vs non-residents for all usage of facilities, memberships, classes, camps. Perhaps you might observe a large % of non-residents consume our resources and facilities while paying a negligible premium.

I urge you to make residents the first and primary mission, priority and focus of parks and rec and use non-residents to subsidize residents and resident nonprofits.

Please raise prices on non-residents and non-resident non-profits steeply and lower prices on residents on all parks and rec offerings, not just indoor facility rentals.

In particular the city should not be under any obligation whatsoever to 1052
CC 07/01/2025
1052 of 1130
subsidize all the non-profits from any address how so ever far it may be outside Cupertino and offer them significant discounts compared to Cupertino residents. There are no limits on these non-resident non-profits such as within a 3 mile radius outside the boundaries of Cupertino city. Why should the city offer steep discounts to, say, an Oakland or Richmond or Hayward or Fremont or Sacramento non-profit at prices steeply lower than for Cupertino residents.

I urge all of you to act swiftly with urgency to immediately lower prices on Cupertino residents and raise prices on non-residents and non-resident nonprofits.

I further implore you to re-order your priority groups. Group 2 should be Cupertino residents. Group 3 should be non-resident non-profits.

Nowhere is this pricing and non-resident overload on city resources more egregious than popular parks and rec events such as the Halloween and holiday events the city puts up. These are inundated with non-residents and residents cannot get in. I know plenty of families including mine that could not get into the Halloween event last year because it was overrun by non-residents.

Let’s also please keep advance bookings open to residents only on popular events like Halloween and holiday festivals and open to non-residents only a day or two before the events or only as walk-in if available and if not already fully booked up by residents.

Thank you for making Cupertino residents the first and primary focus for parks and rec and non-residents should bear a steep premium to subsidize residents.

Thank you for reading and acting on behalf of the interests of Cupertino residents primarily rather than subsidizing non-residents.

Thanks,
San Rao
Cupertino resident and voter
(Writing on behalf of myself only)
1053
CC 07/01/2025
1053 of 1130
May 06, 2025
FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule
Update
1054
CC 07/01/2025
1054 of 1130
• Background
• What is a Fee?
• Fee Study
• Fee Rates
• Fiscal Impact
• Staff Recommendation
Agenda
1055
CC 07/01/2025
1055 of 1130
A fee or rate charged to an individual or
group that receives a private benefit from
services provided by the City.

Background - What is a Fee?
1056
CC 07/01/2025
1056 of 1130
2016 & 2023 Fee Studies
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
• Adopted in 2024
• Cost of Services -Sets the cap on cityprovided services Background – Fee Study
1057
CC 07/01/2025
1057 of 1130
Background - Fees for City Services
Fee Schedule Description
Schedule A - General Fees Miscellaneous fees not associated with one department(abatement fees, false alarms,
PRA request, etc.)
Schedule B - Engineering Fees Public Works – Engineering:

Design and Inspection Services
Schedule C - Planning Fees Community Development – Planning:

Current, Mid, and Long-Term Planning
Schedule D - Building Fees Community Development – Building:

General Building, Construction Plan Check,
and Building Code Enforcement
1058
CC 07/01/2025
1058 of 1130
Fiscal Impact
Fee Schedule Estimated Additional
Revenue Factor and Basis
Schedule A – General Fees $971 Cost-recovery plus

2.7% CPI
Schedule B – Engineering Fees $136,082
Cost-recovery plus
-0.79% CCI,

9.7% Labor
Schedule C – Planning Fees $106,255
Cost-recovery plus

2.7% CPI,

9.7% Labor
Schedule D – Building Fees $542,175 Cost-recovery plus

9.7% Labor
1059
CC 07/01/2025
1059 of 1130
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving FY 2025‐26 Fee
Schedules, effective July 6, 2025
1060
CC 07/01/2025
1060 of 1130
Effective Date: July 19, 2023
Teen Center
• Removed from the schedule due to
permanent closure
Security Staff
• Update rate to: $43
Schedule E – Parks & Recreation Fees
1061
CC 07/01/2025
1061 of 1130
Consumer Price
Index (CPI)
Construction Cost
Index (CCI)
Labor Cost

5.3% 7.1% 9.0%
Background – Fee Rates
1062
CC 07/01/2025
1062 of 1130
Background – Fee Rates
Fiscal Year Schedule A –
General Fees
Schedule B –
Engineering Fees
Schedule C –
Planning Fees
Schedule D –
Building Fees
2023-24
(proposed) 5.3% CPI 7.1% CCI9.0% Labor

5.3% CPI

9.0% Labor 9.0% Labor
2022-23 5.2% CPI 9.8% CCI

1.0% Labor

5.2% CPI

1.0% Labor 1.0% Labor
2021-22 1.6% CPI 2.5% CCI

5.7% Labor

1.6% CPI

5.7% Labor 5.7% Labor
2020-21 2.9% CPI 6.3% CCI

17.3% Labor 17.3% Labor 17.3% Labor
1063
CC 07/01/2025
1063 of 1130
Incorporated Elements
• Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Cycle
• Annual update mechanism
• Phase-in period
• Target Cost Recovery Ranges
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
1064
CC 07/01/2025
1064 of 1130
Cost Recovery Range
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
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
1065
CC 07/01/2025
1065 of 1130
CC 05-06-2025
Item No. 10
Approval of Fiscal
Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee
Schedule Update
Written Communications
1066
CC 07/01/2025
1066 of 1130
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda item 10
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:30:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communicatons for the 05/06/25 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Dear City Council Members,
Please direct city staff to continue this item to a future date and to revise the current proposal that will revert the cost recovery policy imposed on the residents by the previous council.

The cost recovery should be via commercial developments.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
1067
CC 07/01/2025
1067 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13960 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 14.

Subject: Acceptance of FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan Accept the FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™1068
CC 07/01/2025
1068 of 1130

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Subject
FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan
Recommended Action
Accept the FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan
Reasons for Recommendation
Background
As of FY 2021-22, Moss Adams LLP (“Moss Adams”) serves as the designated Internal Auditor for the City of Cupertino (the City) and conducts projects focusing on:
 Risks
 Internal controls
 Efficiency and effectiveness
 Best practices
 Compliance
As described in the internal audit charter, the Internal Auditor is appointed by and reports to the Audit Committee and City Council. The Audit Committee and City Council approve the annual audit work plan, review audit report findings and recommendations, and monitor the implementation of recommendations.

Internal Audit Work Plan
The internal audit work plan, developed by Moss Adams, outlines the projects to be undertaken in FY 2025-26. The Audit Committee and City Council prioritize the projects included in the work plan.

The Audit Committee and City Council approved the following internal audit work plans in prior years:
 FY 2021-22:
o Procurement Operational Review
o Policy Inventory (Fiscal) and Plan
1069
CC 07/01/2025
1069 of 1130
o Capital Program Effectiveness Study Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) Program  FY 2022-23:
o Budget Process Review
o Enterprise Leadership Effectiveness Study
o Library Construction Audit
 FY 2023-24:
o Enterprise Risk Assessment
o City Policy Inventory
 FY 2024-25:
o Grants Management Internal Controls Review
o Special Revenue Funds Process Review
o Recommendation Validation Process Establishment
For FY 2025-26, Moss Adams recommended the following internal audit work plan:
 Council-Wide Policy Review Inventory (already approved by City Council) Review and provide recommendations to align council policies with best practices (16 weeks, $40,000)  City-Wide Internal Control Review: Conduct a review of the City’s internal controls framework in key areas that are deemed important to protecting City assets and resources. (16 weeks, $45,000)
 Investment/Cash Flow Policy Review/Recommendation Review and provide best practice recommendations over the City’s investment/Cash Flow policy. (8 weeks, $10,000)  Ongoing Internal Audit Services: Attend Audit Committee and Council meetings, prepare status reports, recommendation validation, manage internal audit program, and monitor the Fraud, Waste and Abuse (FWA) hotline. ($25,000)
The FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan was presented to the Audit Committee on April 28, 2025. The Audit Committee voted unanimously to receive the reports and forward them to the City Council for approval.

Next Steps
If the City Council approves the recommended Internal Audit Work Plan, Moss Adams will complete the recommended projects and present the audit reports to the Audit Committee for review and the City Council for acceptance. The audit reports will be available on the City’s website at cupertino.org/finance under Internal Audit.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
1070
CC 07/01/2025
1070 of 1130
In the FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget, the City has budgeted $120,000 for the internal audit contract in the contracts category of the accounting program (GL 100-10-100 700-702). No additional appropriations are requested.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Financial, Investment, and Cashflow Policy Review.

Council Goal
Fiscal Strategy.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A – FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan
1071
CC 07/01/2025
1071 of 1130
City of Cupertino
FY 25-26 Internal Audit Program
Audit Committee Meeting
April 2025
1072
CC 07/01/2025
1072 of 1130
• The City retained Moss Adams to serve as the
designated Internal Auditor and conduct projects
focusing on:
• Risks
• Internal controls
• Efficiency and effectiveness
• Best practices
• Compliance
• Work is being completed under appropriate industry
standards (IIA, GAGAS, AICPA)
Internal Audit Overview
2 1073
CC 07/01/2025
1073 of 1130
Role of Internal
Audit
3 Source: IIA
1074
CC 07/01/2025
1074 of 1130
Holistic Internal Audit Program Components
Tracking &
Reporting A Program Inputs B Opportunities C
• Enterprise
Assessments
• Employees and
Residents
• Performance
Metrics
• Risks
• Controls
• Compliance
• Performance
• Findings &
Recommendations
• Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse Hotline
• Corrective Actions
• Implementation
• Validation
4 1075
CC 07/01/2025
1075 of 1130
5 Internal Audit Program Components
5 Internal Audit Plan
Risks Internal
Controls Compliance Performance
Accounting and financial reporting, asset management, capital programs, compliance, economics and funding, fraud, governance, human resources, internal controls, maintenance and operations, management, operations and service delivery, organization and staffing, processes and procedures, procurement, public safety, risk management, and technology
Functions Components Plan
City Internal Audit Annual
1076
CC 07/01/2025
1076 of 1130
6 Program Review
Focus Accomplishments
• Enterprise Risk Assessments 2021, 2024
• Internal Controls Projects Completed 2
o Grant Management Internal Controls FY25
• Performance/Efficiency Projects Completed 5
o Special Revenue Fund Process FY25
• Policies Reviewed 139
• Recommendations Delivered 52
• Ethics Hotline Reports Received 33 reports
• Recommendations Validated in FY25 45
6 1077
CC 07/01/2025
1077 of 1130
7 Departments Covered
Department Projects
Administrative Services Procurement (22)
Finance P&Ps (22)
Budget Process Review (23)
Grants Management Internal Control Review (25)
Special Revenue Fund Process (25)
City Clerk
City Manager’s Office FWA Program (22)
Community Development
Communications
Innovation & Technology
Parks & Recreation
Public Works Capital Program (22)
Library Construction Audit (23)
 Enterprise Projects: Risk Assessment (21, 24), Enterprise Leadership (23), Policies and Procedures (24), Recommendation Validation (25) 1078 CC 07/01/2025
1078 of 1130
Performance Projects

1. Permitting Efficiency Study

2. CIP Implementation
Internal Controls and Compliance Projects

1. Council-Wide Policy Review Inventory

2. City-Wide Internal Controls Review

3. Investment/Cash Flow Policy Review/Recommendation

4. Credit Card Testing
Program Management:

1. Ongoing Internal Audit Services

2. Ongoing Recommendation Validation
Potential FY25-26 Internal Audit Projects
8 1079
CC 07/01/2025
1079 of 1130

1. Council-Wide Policy Review Inventory (already approved by City Council) Review and provide recommendations to
align council policies with best practices(16 weeks, $40,000)

2. City-Wide Internal Control Review Conduct a review of the City’s internal controls framework in key areas that are deemed important to protecting City assets and resources. (16 weeks, $45,000)

3. Investment/Cash Flow Policy Review/Recommendation Review and provide best practice recommendations over the City’s investment/Cash Flow policy. (8 weeks, $10,000)

4. Ongoing Internal Audit ServicesAttend Audit Committee and Council meetings, prepare status reports,
recommendation validation manage internal audit program, and monitor FWA hotline. ($25,000)
Recommended FY25-26
Internal Audit Projects
8 1080
CC 07/01/2025
1080 of 1130
The material appearing in this presentation is for informational purposes only and is not legal or accounting advice. Communication of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a legal relationship, including, but not limited to, an accountant-client relationship. Although these materials may have been prepared by professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. If legal, accounting, or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.
10 9
1081
CC 07/01/2025
1081 of 1130
• Government Finance Officer’s Association (GFOA)
• GFOA Best Practices Guide on Audit Committees
• Institute of Internal Auditors
• IIA Publication “The Audit Committee: Internal Audit
Oversight”
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
• Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
11 Resources
1082
CC 07/01/2025
1082 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14038 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 15.

Subject: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.96, Sections

2.96.010 Established-Composition and 2.96.020 Terms of Office, pertaining to the Economic Development Committee.

1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 25-2273 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title 2 Chapter 2.96 Economic Development Committee, Section

2.96.010 Established-Composition and Section 2.96.020 Terms of Office.”

2. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™1083
CC 07/01/2025
1083 of 1130

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Subject
Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.96, Sections 2.96.010 Established-Composition and 2.96.020 Terms of Office, pertaining to the Economic Development Committee.

Recommended Action

1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 25-XXX “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title 2 Chapter 2.96 Economic Development Committee, Section 2.96.010 Established-Composition and Section 2.96.020 Terms of Office.”

2. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

Reason for Recommendation
Background
On April 15, 2025, the City Council approved Ordinance 25-2269 reestablishing the Economic Development Committee (“EDC”). On June 17, Council deliberated amending the EDC’s membership composition and ultimately determined that the following would be advisable: (a) replacing one Councilmember representative on the EDC with a representative from the Planning Commission, and (b) establishing one year term lengths for Commissioners and Councilmembers to ensure alignment with the terms of their respective Commissioner or Councilmember offices, and (c) clarifying term lengths for industry sector representatives to stagger their four-year terms.

This proposed Ordinance would update the City’s Municipal Code to achieve all three objectives as follows:
1084
CC 07/01/2025
1084 of 1130

1. Given the Committee’s role in advising the City Council on economic development policy, adding a Planning Commissioner is advisable. The Planning Commission activities such as land use and zoning regulations play a role in shaping the city’s economic environment, making its representative a key contributor to the Committee’s mission. The EDC will benefit from the Planning Commission’s broad scope as it makes recommendations to the City Council on a broad range of strategic matters applicable to the City’s economic development goals.

2. Updating Committee Member terms for the EDC representatives from the City Council and the Commissions is necessary to ensure that the terms of these EDC members conclude when their terms with the other City bodies conclude.

3. Updating the industry sector representatives’ initial terms such that their terms do not all conclude in the same year. Rather, two industry sector representatives’ terms will be two years, expiring January 30, 2027, and three of their terms will be four years, expiring January 30, 2029.

Next Steps:

If the ordinance is not adopted, the composition of the EDC, as adopted in April, would remain unchanged and the terms for each commissioner and councilmember will not be aligned with their terms in the other City bodies. This may cause confusion and will not ensure Committee members rotate off the EDC when their other Commission or City Council terms conclude. Additionally, four committee members' terms will end simultaneously, which may impact operational stability.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
There are no fiscal impacts associated with these updates.

City Work Program Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Public Engagement and Transparency
1085
CC 07/01/2025
1085 of 1130
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Daniel Degu, Economic Development Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance – redline
B – Draft Ordinance – clean
1086
CC 07/01/2025
1086 of 1130
01276.0001 2014461.3 6/20/2025
ORDINANCE NO. 25-____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2.96: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. On March 18April 15, 2025 the City Council enacted an Ordinance No. 25- 2269 reestablishing the Economic Development Committee (EDC).

32. Only one City Councilmember should serve on the EDC to allow for a Planning Commissioner to join the EDC.

23. The terms of the EDC members representing the three Commissions require updating to rationalize the terms of those EDC membersalign with the terms of their otherrespective Commission assignmentsappointments.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 2.96 as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
1087
CC 07/01/2025
1087 of 1130
Ordinance No. ___________________