CC 07-01-2025
#2
Project Update
Presentation by Midpen
Presentation
2025 District Update
North Ridge Trail, Purisima Creek Redwoods (Eric Gouldsberry) July 1, 2025
Jed Cyr, Board President
Craig Gleason, Board Member, Ward 1
Midpen’s Mission(s)
Midpen’s mission: to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.
On the Coast, Midpen has an expanded mission to acquire and preserve agricultural land of regional significance, preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural uses of land resources.
Midpen’s Lands
Midpen’s Board of Director Wards
• Public agency, created in 1972 by a grassroots voter initiative • 763,000 constituents (2020)
• Elected board: seven directors
• Funded primarily through property tax
• 27 Preserves in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties • Preserved over 72,000 acres, 250+ miles of trails
– Over 15,000 acres of grazing land on the San Mateo Coast • Preserves are free and open to the public every day of the year • Main office in Los Altos + field offices
• ~240 employees, ~1000 volunteers
• $300 million voter-approved general obligation bond passed in 2014 to support public priorities
Some Midpen Facts
Project Updates
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Implementation
Cherry Springs Prescribed Burn, 2024
Photo: Michael Gorman
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program:
Project Area Prioritization
Ecosystem Resiliency
Enhanced Fire Management
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program:
Project Areas
• Provides opportunities to engage surrounding
communities through educational, enriching
outings and events provided by our partners that
work with underserved demographics.
• Designed to allow for the organic building of
relationships and is broken into three tiers of
partnership and financial support.
Our outreach partnership program participants
include:
Latino Outdoors at El Corte De Madera (Latino Outdoors) East Palo Alto Library at El Corte De Madera (EPA Library) Vista Center at Rancho San Antonio (Midpen Staff)
Tier 1 - Pilot partnerships
• East Palo Alto Library
• Puente de la Costa Sur
• Coastside Children
Tier 2 - Formal contracts
• Bay Area Older Adults
• Boys and Girls Club of the Coastside
• Branching Out Adventures
• Saved by Nature
• Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
• Student Conservation Association
• Vista Center for the Blind
Tier 3 - Multi-Year, Deeply collaborative
contracts
• Latino Outdoors
Increased Engagement
Outreach Partnership Program
Highway 17 Crossings
Join Us! Midpen Events Calendar
Find us at openspace.org/events
Questions?
openspace.org
[email protected]
Sign up for eNews at:
openspace.org/enewsletter
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 12
Public Hearing
Townhome
Development
Presentation
1 City Council
July 1, 2025
Housing Development
20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project SiteProject Site
Address
20770, 20830, & 20840
Stevens Creek Blvd
Land Use
Commercial/Residential *
Zoning
P(CG, Res)*,
Heart of the City
The Crossroads
Stevens Creek Blvd
Scofield Drive
Faria
Elementary
* Zoning and GP land use vested
to January 2024 under state law
1 2
2 Project Background
Existing Uses
Two former restaurants (Fontana’s & Pizza Hut) and Staples Applications
● SB330 Preliminary Application - January 29, 2024
● Formal Application - July 22, 2024
Housing Element Context
● 2023-2031 Housing Element adopted May 2024
● Priority Housing Sites #40-43
● SB330 application submitted prior to HE adoption
Applicable State Housing Laws
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Cannot make project infeasible or reduce density.
Housing Crisis Act (“SB 330” or “HCA”)
Streamlines permit processing and locks-in fees and
standards. Vesting Date: January 29, 2024
Density Bonus Law
Allows for additional units, waivers, concessions, and
reduced parking standards.
No Net Loss (SB 166)
Sites to accommodate RHNA by income level must be
available.
3 4
3 Project Site Plan
Project DesignProject Design
View from Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Internal open space
5 6
4 Project Consistency Analysis
● Project is consistent with applicable objective
standards as proposed under state law.
● Use Permit proposed to allow residential uses on a
mixed-use zoned property.
● Two Density Bonus concessions requested to
waive requirement in General Plan and Heart of
the City Specific Plan for commercial component.
Height WaiverHeight Waiver
Waiver
Waiver
7 8
5 Front
Setback
Waiver
Front
Setback
Waiver
Required 35’ Setback
from curb
Provided 26’ Setback
from curb
Required 18’-6” Setback
Provided 15’ Setback
Side Setback WaiverSide Setback Waiver
Required 18’-8” Setback
Provided 16’-2”’ Setback
Required 18’-8” Setback
Provided 15’ Setback
Required 18’-6” Setback
Provided 15’ Setback
9 10
6 Rear
Setback
Waiver
Rear
Setback
Waiver
Required 56’ Setback
Provided 32’ Setback
Building
Forms
(Terracing)
Building
Forms
(Terracing)
Required terracing of
second and third
stories
Provided no terracing
of second and third
stories
11 12
7 Service Access WaiverService Access Waiver
Required Service
Access from rear
Proposed service
access from Stevens
Creek
Private Outdoor Space ClearancePrivate Outdoor Space Clearance Required 6’ dimension
Example of proposed
5’-5” dimension
Required 6’ dimension
Example of proposed
4’-6” dimension
13 14
8 Parking
Planter
Strip
Parking
Planter
Strip
Location of required
planting area
No landscape strip
provided
Lot Coverage and Stall Size
ProposedRequiredProject Data
43%40% max.Lot Coverage
9’-10” x 18’10’ x 20’ min.Parking Stall Size
15 16
9 Public Art and Park Land
Public Art Dedication
● Proposed public art plaza in the northeastern corner of property.
● To be reviewed and approved by Arts and Culture
Commission after project approval.
Park Land Dedication
● Staff recommends payment of in-lieu fee.
● Project is conditioned to pay in-lieu fee of $2,538,000 for the 47 market rate units.
BMR Requirements
Average Unit SizeNumber of
BedroomsNumber of Units
2,166 square feet412BMR Units
1,799 square feet3 15Market‐Rate Units
2,588 square feet432
12 BMR units – 6 moderate and 6 median income
Proposed BMR units are comparable to market rate
units in type and size:
Average of all Market Rate Units – 2,336 sq. ft.
17 18
10 Categorical Exemption
Categorical Exemption Memorandum prepared:
● Reviewed environmental reports:
● Biological Assessment
● Environmental Site
Assessment*
● Transportation Analysis
● Arborist Report
● Noise Assessment
● Air Quality Analysis
● Project qualifies for a Class 32 (Infill Development) exemption based on:
● Review of reports
● Implementation of standard requirements of Municipal Code *Conditions added to ensure management of soils per ESA review.
Planning Commission Hearing
June 10th Planning Commission Hearing:
● Unanimous vote to recommend approval.
● Discussion:
● Potential traffic concerns
● Tree removals
● Loss of retail
● Lack of Very Low-Income housing
● Use of stamped concrete at the driveway
● Rear building setbacks
● Public outreach
19 20
11 Recommended Actions
That the City Council adopt the resolutions to:
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA;
2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss; and
3. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2024-002);
b. Use Permit (U-2024-007);
c. Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2024-005);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-001); and
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-024).
21 20840 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
1 PLANNING APPROACH
Build on SummerHill’s
50+ years of experience
developing Communities of
Distinction in the Bay Area
Complement nearby
residential neighborhoods
Landscape Design
Consistent with the Heart
of the City Specific Plan
Provide housing on a
Housing Inventory Site
Respect City Staff Input
• Tree Screening with
adjacent properties
• Increased setback
adjacent to the existing
residential neighborhood
Comply with Objective
Standards and contribute to
the Heart of the City Specific
Plan
2 ORIGINAL SITE LAYOUT
3 UPDATED SITE LAYOUT
4 ORIGINAL SITE OVERLAYED WITH UPDATED SITE LAYOUT
5 PROCESS TO DATE
Jan 2024 SB 330 Preliminary Application
June 2024 SummerHill hosted Neighborhood Meeting
July 2024 Formal Development Application
Oct 2024 Development Application determined complete
Mar 2025 SummerHill submitted fully compliant plan set to City June 2025 Planning Commission Hearing
June 2025 SummerHill met with Scofield Neighborhood
July 2025 City Council Hearing
2025
2024
6 SAMPLE BUILDING ELEVATION
7 All-electric residential community including heating, water heating, and appliances
Each home will include solar panels and energy efficient electric appliances, windows, and insulation
The community will include drought tolerant and/or
native landscaping, water-conserving irrigation systems including climate-sensitive controllers in common areas, and biological treatment of stormwater runoff
Each garage will have:
- (1) Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) Ready space
- (1) Level 1 EV Ready space
- Space for bicycle parking for alt. mode of transit
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
8 COMMUNITY BENEFITS
59 Townhome-style Condominiums
compatible with the neighborhood
3/4-bedroom floor plans
• 2.5M Park Fees
• 550k School Fees
• 120k Contribution to the Stevens
Creek Boulevard Class IV Bike Lane
12 Homes at below-market price
for Median & Moderate Income
families
Propose public art along project
frontage
9 Enhanced pedestrian environment along
Stevens Creek Boulevard per the Heart
of the City Specific Plan
THANK YOU
10 EXISTING SITE OVERVIEW
11 FEBRUARY 2025 – PROJECT PLAN
12 BELOW MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
12 BELOW MARKET PRICE HOMES
1,363 SF – 2,008 SF | 3/4 BEDROOMS + 3 OR 3.5 BATHS
6 HOMES SOLD TO MEDIAN-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
80% - 100% OF SANTA CLARA CO’S AREA MEDIAN INCOME
6 HOMES SOLD TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
100% - 120% OF SANTA CLARA CO.’S AREA MEDIAN INCOME
DEED-RESTRICTED
HOMES DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY
PREFERENCES DETERMINED BY CUPERTINO BELOW MARKET
RATE HOUSING PROGRAM GUIDELINES
13 UNIT 3 ALT AND UNIT 4 ALT SECTIONS
14 BUILDING 5 SECTION
15 BUILDING 7
16 3rd Floor
Right Elevation
BUILDING 8
17 3rd Floor Left Elevation
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 13
FY 2025-26 Fee
Schedule Update
Presentation
July 1, 2025
FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule
Update
• Background
• What is a Fee?
• Fee Study
• Fee Rates
Agenda
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?
• Fiscal Impact
• Staff Recommendation
2016 & 2023 Fee Studies
Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
• Adopted in 2024
• Cost of Services -Sets the cap on city-
provided services
Background – Fee Study
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
Fiscal Impact
Fee Schedule Estimated Additional
Revenue Factor and Basis
Schedule A – General Fees $809 Cos
t-recovery plus
2.7% CPI
Schedule B – Engineering Fees $113,402
Cost-recovery plus
-0.79% CCI,
9.7% Labor
Schedule C – Planning Fees $88,546
Cos
t-recovery plus
2.7% CPI,
9.7% Labor
Schedule D – Building Fees $451,812 Cos
t-recovery plus
9.7% Labor
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving FY 2025‐26 Fee
Schedules, effective September 1, 2025
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 14
FY 2025-26
Internal Audit
Work Plan
Presentation
City of Cupertino
FY25-26 Internal Audit Program
City Council Meeting
July 1, 2025
2 Internal Audit Overview
• The City retained Baker Tilly (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)
3 Internal Audit Program Components
Internal Audit Plan
Risks Internal
Controls Compliance Performance
Accounting and financial reporting, assessment 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
City
Functions
Internal Audit
Components
Annual
Plan
Risk
Assessment
Results
4 RISK CATEGORY OVERALL RISK LEVEL
Funding and Economics High
Capital Improvement Program Moderate to High
Compliance and Financial Reporting Moderate to High
Human Resources Moderate to High
Planning and Strategy Moderate to High
Asset Management Moderate
Governance Moderate
Internal Controls Moderate
Management and Leadership Moderate
Operations and Service Delivery Moderate
Organization and Staffing Moderate
Policies and Procedures Moderate
Procurement and Contracting Moderate
Reputation and Public Perception Moderate
Risk Programs Moderate
Accounting and Finance Low to Moderate
Ethics and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Low to Moderate
Information Technology Low to Moderate
Public Safety and Security Low to Moderate
5 Program Review
• Enterprise Risk Assessments
• Internal Controls Projects Completed
• Performance/Efficiency Projects Completed
• Policies Reviewed
• Recommendations Delivered
• Ethics Hotline Reports Received
• Recommendations Validated in FY25
2021, 2024
3 6
139
52 33 reports
45 6
Recommended FY25-26 Internal Audit Projects
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 Controls 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 practices recommendations over the City’s Investment/Cash Flow policy (8 weeks, $10,000)
4. Ongoing Internal Audit Services: Attend Audit Committee and Council meetings, prepare status reports, recommendation validation, manage internal audit program, and monitor FWA hotline ($25,000)
7 This material appearing in this presentation is for information 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 accounting-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.
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.
CC 07-1-2025
Item No. 16
Study Session -
Oversized Vehicle
Parking
Presentation
City Council Study Session
Oversized Vehicle Parking
Ordinance Update
Floy Andrews
Interim City Attorney
Oversized Vehicle Parking*
• Consider amending Municipal Code
• Address enforcement loopholes, resident
concerns, safety and aesthetics
• Balance quality of life, safety, legal risks and
enforcement
*This is a City Work Program item.
• 11.24.130 (update current 72-hour parking limit)
• 11.24.200 (vehicle removal, unchanged)
• 11.28.010 (adding definition of oversized vehicle)
• 11.28.020 (parking regulations updates,
incorporating current restriction on living or
sleeping in vehicles)
Municipal Code Sections Affected
Background: Current Practice
72-hour limit for all vehicles parking
on public streets within the City
Municipal Code Section 11.24.130
• Complaint-driven enforcement process
• Tire marking (not chalk)
• Re-inspection after 72 hours
Challenges in Current Enforcement
• Vehicles move inches to avoid citation
• Coordinated rotations among RV owners
• Allows vehicles to stay indefinitely
• Current Areas impacted:
- Alves between Saich & Bandley
(behind Target)
- Stelling & Rainbow
- Foothill/SCB and other intersections
Enforcement Statistics
• ~200 complaints annually, mostly RVs with
tagging of 5+ vehicles/week
• Citations 2024-25: Only ~21 issued to RVs
• Revenue: ~$1,700 from RV citations
• Total Revenue: ~$180,000 from all citations
Definition of Oversized Vehicle
Based on CA Vehicle Code § 670
Vehicles exceeding:
22 feet in length
6 feet in width, and
7 feet in height
(Includes trailers and loads)
* would not include even the largest pickup trucks
(Ford F-450 Super Duty or Tesla Cybertruck)
Planning Commission Recommendations (1)
• Citywide ban on oversized vehicles, except:
3-hour parking limit in daytime (6AM – 8PM)
1-hour limit overnight (8PM – 6AM)
• Allow residents to obtain annual permits to
park oversized vehicles on City streets
(one/household, no charge)
Planning Commission Recommendations (2)
• Allow nonresidents 5 permits to park
annually (not within 1,500 feet of a
commercial district)
• City should install signage at Alves and
Bandley and other problem areas
• City should evaluate the program after one
year
* All permits require vehicles to be moved every 72 hours to a new location at least 1,500 ft away and stay away 72 hours.
Pros & Cons of General Ban Proposal
• Pros:
Allows signage at only City entrances,
clears streets, improves visibility,
deters long-term parking on City streets
• Cons:
Daytime and nighttime time limit
exceptions are difficult to manage
Resident Permit Program (exception)
One permit per household for vehicle owned
by resident
• No charge for permit
• Park up to 72 hours, then move 1,500 ft
• Unlimited 72-hour periods allowed if
moved properly
“Resident” Defined
• Physically resides in a dwelling in a residential district within the City as their primary residence
• Provides evidence of residency, such as:
- CA driver’s license/ID card showing the resident address - utility bill displaying person’s name and address
- current lease or deed showing person’s occupancy
- current vehicle registration showing residential address - documentation acceptable to the Public Works Director • A person need not own the dwelling unit to qualify as a resident.
Pros & Cons of Resident Permits
• Pros:
Residents maintain RV use close to home,
balances needs of residents and their
guests, eliminates need for multiple permits
• Cons:
Potential near-permanent street parking
Neighborhood aesthetic concerns
Nonresident Permit Program (exception)
Up to 5 permits/year (15 days) for
nonresidents
• Park up to 72 hours then move from City
• If using a second permit, move 1,500 ft
• No parking near commercial zones*
*(would need to provide map of commercial and residential zones when issuing permits)
Signage Rules and Costs
• If City posts signs, enforcement is more
efficient, initial warning not required
• Citywide parking regulations allows for signs
to be placed at City entrances only: cost
~$25,000, 50 signs
• Otherwise, signs must be posted on each
City block: cost prohibitive($513 per sign,
$2,000 per block)
Local Cities’ Large Vehicle Solutions
Redwood City: Vehicles may not park on
public streets at night, with limited exceptions.
Saratoga: Vehicles may not park in residential
areas for 72+ hours; must be moved 1 mile.
Los Gatos: Vehicles may not park where
posted or on designated streets.
Mountain View: Vehicles may not park on
certain streets adjacent to class II bikeways or
on certain narrow streets.
Legal Context
• Mountain View litigation & settlement
• Redwood City’s safe RV lot approach
• Fremont litigation – unhoused, not parking
ordinance
Grants Pass Supreme Court Opinion (2024)
Shifts rules in Ninth Circuit
Fiscal and Operational Considerations
• Signage: $513 per sign, $25,000 for entrance-only
signage
• Signage: one city clock $2,000 (well over $3M for city) • Permit processing cost: ~$46.50 each permit
• Anticipated volume: 3-4 permits/week (may require
more staff time if volume is greater)
• FY 2024 parking citation revenue: ~$180,000
• Uniform Citywide rules: 1) reduce confusion and cost
and 2) allows for entrance signs only
Other Local Options for Parking
We reached out to:
• West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park Program
• Amigos de Guadelupe
• 211 line
• Bill Wilson Center
None of these facilities allow RVs
We talked to West Valley Community Services manager who confirmed that they do not accept RVs, but they do allow camper vans.
Next Steps for Council
Council to consider:
• General Ban on oversized vehicles parking
- day/night parking windows
• Resident/Nonresident permit program
• Signage strategy
• Evaluate after first year
Questions