Cupertino City Council
September 3, 2025

DENTAL INSURANCE ‐ EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION

It  is  the  policy  of  the  City  of  Cupertino  to  provide  dental  insurance  under  which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered.  The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the healt h of employees.

The  premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $114.30126.78* per month per employee.  Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be in accordance with Personnel Rules of the City and the provisions of the contract for such insurance between the City and carrier or carriers.

*Dental Coverage: Effective the first month after Council adoption of agreement, dental coverage is capped at $2
,500.00 per dependent per annual plan year for the term of this contract.

Adopted by Action of
City Council
July 1, 1983
Revised 7/87, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/99, 4/07, 10/12, 10/16, 7/19, 9/25

357
CC 09-03-2025
357 of 551

24 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 13

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

The   department  heads  and  executive  level  staff  shall  receive  eighty  (80)  hours  of administrative leave with pay per year.  Unrepresented employees exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall receive forty (40) hours of administrative leave with pay per year.

Employees  may  accumulate  administrative  leave  hours  up  to  two  times  their  a nnual
accrual.

Employees  shall be eligible to convert up to 80 hours of administrative leave to pay one time each calendar year.

Adopted by Action of
the City Co
uncil
July, 1988

Revised
7/92, 7/97, 7/99, 7/10, 12/12, 10/16, 8/22, 3/23

358
CC 09-03-2025
358 of 551

25 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 14

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

It  is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide an Employee Assistance Program for the  benefit  of  Management  and  Confidential  employees  and  their  eligible  dependents.  The purpose  of  this  program  is  to  provide  professional  ass istance  and  counseling  concerning financial, legal, pre‐retirement, and other matters of a personal nature.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
June 17, 1996

359
CC 09-03-2025
359 of 551

26 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 15

VACATION ACCUMULATION

The  department  heads  and  executive  level  staff  shall  earn  vacation  hours  under  the  same vacation accumulation schedule as all other employees.  Credit shall be provided for previous public sector service time on a year‐for‐year basi s as to annual vacation accumulation.  Credit shall only be given for completed years of service.  Public service credit shall not apply to any other supplemental benefit.  Employee(s) affected by this policy will have the responsibility of providing certification as to previous public sector service.

Benefited full‐time employees accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule.

Benefited e
mployees who work less than a full‐time work schedule accrue vacation in accordance with the following schedule on a pro‐rated basis.

Service Time    Annual Accruals  Maximum Accrual
0 ‐ 3 Years     80 Hours  160 Hours
4 ‐ 9 Years   120 Hours  240 Hours
10 – 14 Years   160 Hours  272 Hours
15 – 19 Years     176 Hours  320 Hours
20 + Years      192 Hours  352 Hours

An employee may accrue no more vacation credit than what is listed above.

VAC
ATION CREDITS

The hiring manager, with the approval of the department head and the City Manager, may offer  a  vacation  bank  of  up  to  120  hours  of  vacation  to  a  prospective  candidate  in  the Unrepresented group.  These hours do not vest for payoff purposes if the employee leaves service.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 7, 1997

Revised 6/99, 7/
10, 12/12, 7/13, 10/16, 3/23

360
CC 09-03-2025
360 of 551

27 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 16

HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Housing  assistance may be offered to the department heads pursuant to Resolution No. 15‐092.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 7, 1997

Revised 7/99, 7/10, 8/12, 10/15

361
CC 09-03-2025
361 of 551

28 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 17

VISION INSURANCE – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION

It  is  the  policy  of  the  City  of  Cupertino  to  provide  vision  insurance  under  which employees and their dependents may be covered.  The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of e mployees.

The   premium  cost  for  the  insurance  provided  by  the  City  shall  not  exceed  $14.94  per month per employee.  Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall be  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  contract  between  the  City  and  carrier  or  carriers providing vi
sion insurance coverage,

Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 1997

Revised 7/99, 6/02, 6/03, 7/10, 10/12

362
CC 09-03-2025
362 of 551

29 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 18

WORK OUT OF CLASSIFICATION/WORK IN DUAL CLASSIFICATION

Work  Out  of Classification – Temporary  assignment,  approved  in  advance  by  the  department head, to a classification in a higher pay grade shall be compensated at the Step 1 rate of the higher classification or at a rate five (5) percent greater than that of the regular position, whichever is greater, for the  number of hours assigned.  In order to qualify for out‐of‐classificati on  pay,  an employee shall work a minimum of four (4) hours per day in the temporary assignment.

An employee may be assigned to work out of class in a higher classification when there is a vacant position for which a recruitment is being, or will be, conducted.  Out of class assignme
nts may not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year. Compensation for work performed in an out‐of‐class capacity is included for purposes of calculating CalPERS compensation, however, this is at the discretion of CalPERS and future changes to CalPERS regulations would supersede the language of this section.

An employee may receive acting pay for working in a higher classificatio n where a vacancy
does not exist, in the case of an incumbent being on vacation or leave of absence, or due to the employee being asked to perform higher level work on any other temporary basis. Acting pay is not include
d for purposes of calculating CalPERS compensation.

The higher rate of pay shall be used in computing overtime when authorized overtime is worked in a non‐exempt, out of class or acting work assignment.  When a non‐exempt employee is working out of class or acting in an exempt position for 20 ho urs or more in a work week, the employee will be ineligible to receive overtime pay for any and all hours worked in the exempt classification during that work week.

All requests for out of class pay or acting pay must be approved by the Director of Administrative Services or his/her designee.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
October 2016

Revised 7/19

363
CC 09-03-2025
363 of 551

30 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 19

EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

It is the intent of the City to recognize the value of continuing education and professional development of its employees; and to adopt an Education Reimbursement Program which will encourage employees to avail themselves of City job related educational opportunit ies that will advance their knowledge and interests in the direction of their career path. Courses should either: a) maintain or improve job skills in the employee’s current position; b) be expressly required by the City or by law; or c) prepare the employee to become a competitive applicant for a different position with the Cit
y.

The Education Reimbursement Program is a benefit to all full time benefited employees who have completed the required probationary period and provides education reimbursement of up to two thousand dollars($2,000) per calendar year for the cost of registration, required textbooks and/or materials and parking. Employees who wish to see k reimbursement from the City for educational program costs shall provide a written request for reimbursement in advance of enrollment to the Human Resources Division. The form provided shall include the type of training, sponsoring organization or institution, meeting times and costs. Human Resources and the employe
e’s department head will make the determination if the chosen education program is eligible for reimbursement.

No  employee  shall  receive  any  reimbursement  until  they  have  provided  satisfactory  proof  of successful completion of the coursework with a grade of “C” or above, or “Pass” in the case of a Pass/Fail course.  Such proof of co
mpletion shall be provided within 30 days of the conclusion of the course.

Education reimbursement is a taxable benefit under IRS Code.  Education reimbursement will be applied to the calendar year in which the course is passed and satisfactory proof of completion is submitted.

Mandatory or annual coursework, attend ance at conferences and training required to maintain job  specific  certifications  or  proficiencies  are  not  included  in  the  Education  Reimbursement Program.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 2019

364
CC 09-03-2025
364 of 551

31 City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 20

CITY SPONSORED RECREATION AND WELLNESS PROGRAMS

Unrepresented employees shall have the privilege of enrollment in City sponsored recreation programs at the City residents’ fee structure and in preference to non‐residents wishing to enroll. Each calendar year, employees and family members on the e mployee’s dental plan are
eligible to be reimbursed up to $500 per employee in Rec Bucks. Employees shall be reimbursed for approved recreation services in accordance with the City’s Recreation Buck Policies.

Programs allowing for preregistration will be reimbursed after completion of the program, including those allowing for or requiring preregistration in th e calendar year prior to reimbursement.  Reimbursements shall be applied to the year in which they are received.

Benefited employees will also receive a free employee‐only annual Cupertino Sports Center membership. Part‐time benefited employees will have the annual amount of Recreation Bucks prorated based on number of hours worked.  Recreation Bucks are a ta xable benefit under IRS Code, and must be used by the employee within the calendar year and are non‐transferrable.

City employees are eligible to participate in the City’s wellness program as provided for in the City’s Administrative Rules and Regulations.

Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 2019

365
CC 09-03-2025
365 of 551

32 Listing of Unrepresented Classifications by

Salary Rate or Pay Grades

Effective July 1, 2013 (Res. No. 13‐061)
Amended 11/19/ 13 (Res. No. 13‐099)
Amended 12/17/13 (Res. No. 13‐108)
Amended 3/18/14 (Res. No. 14‐130)
Amended 11/3/14 (Res. No. 14‐209)
Amended 11/3/2015 (Res. No. 15‐099)
Amended 6/ 21/16  (Res. No. 16‐064)
Amended 10/4/16 (Res. No. 16‐104 – Not adopted)
Amended 10/18/16 (Res. No. 16‐108)
Amended 11/15/16 (Res. No. 16‐128)
Amended 6/20/17 (Res. No. 17‐056)
Amended 10/17/17 (Res. No. 17‐101)
Amended 7/16/19 (Res. No. 19‐086)
Amended 11/19/19 (Res. No. 19‐140)
Amended 6/ 7/22 (Res. No. 22‐067 on 6/9/22)
Amended 8/16/22 (Res. No. 22‐103)
Amended 3/7/23 (Res. No.23‐028 )
Amended 6/3/25 ( Res. No. )
Amended 7/15/25 (Res. No.)
Amended 9/3/25 (Res. No.)

366
CC 09-03-2025
366 of 551

33 ATTACHMENT A
SALARY SCHEDULE

Salary Effective  July 15, 2025

Classification Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5
ACCOUNTANT I $46.60 $48.93 $51.38 $53.95 $56.65
ACCOUNTANT II $51.37 $53.94 $56.64 $59.47 $62.44
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN $46.22 $48.53 $50.96 $53.51 $56.18 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $40.65 $42.68 $44.82 $47.06 $49.41 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $92.83 $97.48 $102.35 $107.47 $112.84 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMM DEV $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER $74.68 $78.41 $82.33 $86.45 $90.77 ASST DIR PUBLIC WORKS ENG $94.47 $99.19 $104.15 $109.36 $114.82 ASST DIR RECREATION COMM SVCS $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 BUDGET MANAGER $84.91 $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20
BUILDING OFFICIAL $85.34 $89.60 $94.08 $98.79 $103.73 BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $65.89 $69.18 $72.64 $76.28 $80.09 CAPITAL IMPV PROGRAM MGR $84.81 $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 CITY CLERK $75.73 $79.51 $83.49 $87.66 $92.05
CITY ENGINEER $94.47 $99.19 $104.15 $109.36 $114.82 CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR $73.82 $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73

COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING
COORDINATOR $61.81 $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.13
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR $46.86 $49.21 $51.67 $54.25 $56.96 DEPARTMENT HEAD $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL $73.82 $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY $66.80 $70.14 $73.64 $77.33 $81.19 DEPUTY CITY CLERK $54.04 $56.74 $59.58 $62.55 $65.68 DEPUTY CITY MANAGER $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPMENT $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $115.38 $121.15 $127.21 $133.57 $140.25 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER $81.52 $85.59 $89.87 $94.37 $99.08 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $66.26 $69.57 $73.05 $76.71 $80.54 367
CC 09-03-2025
367 of 551

34 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER $84.81 $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 EXEC ASST TO CITY MANAGER $47.77 $50.15 $52.66 $55.30 $58.06 EXEC ASST TO THE CITY ATTNY $46.59 $48.93 $51.38 $53.94 $56.64 FINANCE MANAGER $84.91 $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 GIS COORDINATOR $48.71 $51.15 $53.71 $56.39 $59.21
GIS PROGRAM MANAGER $83.91 $88.11 $92.52 $97.14 $102.00 HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST I $56.06 $58.86 $61.80 $64.90 $68.14 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II $61.81 $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.12 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $33.76 $35.45 $37.22 $39.08 $41.03 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84.91 $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN $46.22 $48.53 $50.96 $53.51 $56.18 I.T. ASSISTANT $45.46 $47.73 $50.12 $52.62 $55.25
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MGR $83.91 $88.11 $92.52 $97.14 $102.00 LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER $48.12 $50.53 $53.05 $55.71 $58.49 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $56.54 $59.37 $62.34 $65.45 $68.72 NETWORK SPECIALIST $58.16 $61.06 $64.12 $67.32 $70.69 PARK RESTORATION IMPV MGR $79.33 $83.29 $87.46 $91.83 $96.42 PERMIT CENTER MANAGER $73.82 $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73 PLANNING MANAGER $85.34 $89.60 $94.08 $98.79 $103.73 PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER $72.94 $76.58 $80.41 $84.43 $88.66 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER $72.86 $76.50 $80.33 $84.34 $88.56 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER $69.73 $73.22 $76.88 $80.72 $84.76 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR $58.78 $61.71 $64.80 $68.04 $71.44 PURCHASING MANAGER $84.91 $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 RECREATION MANAGER $60.01 $63.01 $66.16 $69.46 $72.94 RECREATION SUPERVISOR $54.43 $57.15 $60.01 $63.01 $66.16 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $59.48 $62.45 $65.57 $68.85 $72.30 SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $102.13 $107.24 $112.60 $118.23 $124.14 SENIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $70.50 $74.03 $77.73 $81.61 $85.69 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER $79.66 $83.64 $87.82 $92.22 $96.83 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $61.81 $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.13 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MGR $73.21 $76.88 $80.72 $84.76 $88.99 SERVICE CENTER SUPERINTENDENT $75.15 $78.91 $82.86 $87.00 $91.35 SPECIAL PROJECT EXECUTIVE $112.10 $117.71 $123.60 $129.78 $136.26 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER $84.81 $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 WEB SPECIALIST $51.42 $53.99 $56.69 $59.53 $62.50

368
CC 09-03-2025
368 of 551

35 369
CC 09-03-2025
369 of 551

36 370
CC 09-03-2025
370 of 551

37 371
CC 09-03-2025
371 of 551

38 372
CC 09-03-2025
372 of 551

39 Year 1 ‐ Salary Effective First Full Pay Period in July 2025

Classification Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5
ACCOUNTANT I $48.93 $51.38 $53.95 $56.65 $59.48
ACCOUNTANT II $53.94 $56.64 $59.47 $62.45 $65.57
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN $48.54 $50.96 $53.51 $56.19 $58.99 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $42.68 $44.82 $47.06 $49.41 $51.88 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $97.48 $102.35 $107.47 $112.84 $118.48 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMM DEV $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 $115.89 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER $78.41 $82.33 $86.45 $90.77 $95.31 ASST DIR PUBLIC WORKS ENG $99.19 $104.15 $109.36 $114.82 $120.56 ASST DIR RECREATION COMM SVCS $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 $115.89 BUDGET MANAGER $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 $108.36
BUILDING OFFICIAL $89.60 $94.08 $98.79 $103.73 $108.91
BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $69.18 $72.64 $76.27 $80.09 $84.09 CAPITAL IMPV PROGRAM MGR $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 $108.24 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 CITY CLERK $79.51 $83.49 $87.66 $92.05 $96.65
CITY ENGINEER $99.19 $104.15 $109.36 $114.82 $120.56
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73 $94.22 COMMS AND MARKETING COORDINATOR $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.13 $78.88 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR $49.21 $51.67 $54.25 $56.96 $59.81 DEPARTMENT HEAD $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73 $94.22 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY $70.14 $73.64 $77.33 $81.19 $85.25 DEPUTY CITY CLERK $56.74 $59.58 $62.55 $65.68 $68.97
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 $115.89 DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPMENT $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $121.15 $127.21 $133.57 $140.25 $147.26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER $85.59 $89.87 $94.37 $99.08 $104.04 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $69.57 $73.05 $76.71 $80.54 $84.57 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 $108.24 EXEC ASST TO CITY MANAGER $50.15 $52.66 $55.30 $58.06 $60.96 EXEC ASST TO THE CITY ATTNY $48.92 $51.38 $53.95 $56.63 $59.48 FINANCE MANAGER $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 $108.36
373
CC 09-03-2025
373 of 551

40 GIS COORDINATOR $51.15 $53.71 $56.39 $59.21 $62.17
GIS PROGRAM MANAGER $88.11 $92.52 $97.14 $102.00 $107.10 HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST I $58.86 $61.81 $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.12 $78.88 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $35.45 $37.22 $39.08 $41.03 $43.08 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 $108.36 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN $48.54 $50.96 $53.51 $56.19 $58.99 I.T. ASSISTANT $47.73 $50.12 $52.62 $55.25 $58.02
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MGR $88.11 $92.52 $97.14 $102.00 $107.10 LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER $50.53 $53.05 $55.71 $58.49 $61.42 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $59.37 $62.33 $65.45 $68.72 $72.16
NETWORK SPECIALIST $61.06 $64.12 $67.32 $70.69 $74.22
PARK RESTORATION IMPV MGR $83.29 $87.46 $91.83 $96.42 $101.24 PERMIT CENTER MANAGER $77.51 $81.39 $85.46 $89.73 $94.22 PLANNING MANAGER $89.60 $94.08 $98.79 $103.73 $108.91
PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER $76.58 $80.41 $84.43 $88.66 $93.09 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER $76.50 $80.33 $84.34 $88.56 $92.99 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER $73.21 $76.88 $80.72 $84.76 $88.99 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR $61.71 $64.80 $68.04 $71.44 $75.01 PURCHASING MANAGER $89.15 $93.61 $98.29 $103.20 $108.36 RECREATION MANAGER $63.01 $66.16 $69.46 $72.94 $76.58
RECREATION SUPERVISOR $57.15 $60.01 $63.01 $66.16 $69.46 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $62.45 $65.57 $68.85 $72.30 $75.91
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $107.24 $112.60 $118.23 $124.14 $130.35 SENIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $74.03 $77.73 $81.61 $85.70 $89.98 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER $83.64 $87.82 $92.22 $96.83 $101.67 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.13 $78.88 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MGR $76.88 $80.72 $84.76 $88.99 $93.44 SERVICE CENTER SUPERINTENDENT $78.91 $82.86 $87.00 $91.35 $95.92 SPECIAL PROJECT EXECUTIVE $117.71 $123.59 $129.78 $136.27 $143.07 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER $89.05 $93.51 $98.18 $103.09 $108.24 WEB SPECIALIST $53.99 $56.69 $59.53 $62.50 $65.63

Year 2 ‐ Salary Effective First Full Pay Period in July 2026

Classification Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5
ACCOUNTANT I $50.40 $52.92 $55.57 $58.34 $61.26
ACCOUNTANT II $55.56 $58.34 $61.25 $64.32 $67.53
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN $49.99 $52.49 $55.11 $57.87 $60.76 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $43.96 $46.16 $48.47 $50.89 $53.44 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $100.40 $105.42 $110.69 $116.23 $122.04 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMM DEV $98.20 $103.11 $108.27 $113.68 $119.37 374
CC 09-03-2025
374 of 551

41 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER $80.77 $84.80 $89.04 $93.50 $98.17 ASST DIR PUBLIC WORKS ENG $102.16 $107.27 $112.64 $118.27 $124.18 ASST DIR RECREATION COMM SVCS $98.20 $103.11 $108.27 $113.68 $119.37 BUDGET MANAGER $91.83 $96.42 $101.24 $106.30 $111.61
BUILDING OFFICIAL $92.29 $96.90 $101.75 $106.84 $112.18 BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $71.26 $74.82 $78.56 $82.49 $86.62 CAPITAL IMPV PROGRAM MGR $91.72 $96.31 $101.13 $106.18 $111.49 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 CITY CLERK $81.90 $85.99 $90.29 $94.81 $99.55
CITY ENGINEER $102.16 $107.27 $112.64 $118.27 $124.18
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR $79.84 $83.83 $88.02 $92.42 $97.05 COMMS AND MARKETING COORDINATOR $66.84 $70.18 $73.69 $77.38 $81.25 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR $50.68 $53.22 $55.88 $58.67 $61.61 DEPARTMENT HEAD $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL $79.84 $83.83 $88.02 $92.42 $97.05 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY $72.24 $75.85 $79.65 $83.63 $87.81 DEPUTY CITY CLERK $58.44 $61.36 $64.43 $67.65 $71.04
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER $98.20 $103.11 $108.27 $113.68 $119.37 DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPMENT $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $124.79 $131.03 $137.58 $144.46 $151.68 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER $88.16 $92.57 $97.20 $102.06 $107.16 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $71.66 $75.25 $79.01 $82.96 $87.11 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER $91.72 $96.31 $101.13 $106.18 $111.49 EXEC ASST TO CITY MANAGER $51.66 $54.24 $56.95 $59.80 $62.79 EXEC ASST TO THE CITY ATTNY $50.39 $52.92 $55.57 $58.33 $61.26 FINANCE MANAGER $91.83 $96.42 $101.24 $106.30 $111.61
GIS COORDINATOR $52.68 $55.32 $58.08 $60.99 $64.04
GIS PROGRAM MANAGER $90.75 $95.29 $100.06 $105.06 $110.31 HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST I $60.63 $63.66 $66.84 $70.18 $73.69 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II $66.84 $70.18 $73.69 $77.38 $81.25 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $36.51 $38.33 $40.25 $42.26 $44.38 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $91.83 $96.42 $101.24 $106.30 $111.61 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN $49.99 $52.49 $55.11 $57.87 $60.76 I.T. ASSISTANT $49.16 $51.62 $54.20 $56.91 $59.76
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MGR $90.75 $95.29 $100.06 $105.06 $110.31 LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER $52.04 $54.65 $57.38 $60.25 $63.26 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $61.15 $64.21 $67.42 $70.79 $74.33
NETWORK SPECIALIST $62.90 $66.04 $69.34 $72.81 $76.45
PARK RESTORATION IMPV MGR $85.79 $90.08 $94.59 $99.31 $104.28 PERMIT CENTER MANAGER $79.84 $83.83 $88.02 $92.42 $97.05 375
CC 09-03-2025
375 of 551

42 PLANNING MANAGER $92.29 $96.90 $101.75 $106.84 $112.18 PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER $78.88 $82.83 $86.97 $91.32 $95.88 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER $78.80 $82.74 $86.87 $91.22 $95.78 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER $75.41 $79.18 $83.14 $87.30 $91.66 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR $63.57 $66.74 $70.08 $73.59 $77.26 PURCHASING MANAGER $91.83 $96.42 $101.24 $106.30 $111.61 RECREATION MANAGER $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 $75.13 $78.88
RECREATION SUPERVISOR $58.86 $61.81 $64.90 $68.14 $71.55 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $64.33 $67.54 $70.92 $74.46 $78.19
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $110.45 $115.98 $121.77 $127.86 $134.26 SENIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $76.25 $80.06 $84.06 $88.27 $92.68 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER $86.15 $90.46 $94.98 $99.73 $104.72 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $66.84 $70.18 $73.69 $77.38 $81.25 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MGR $79.18 $83.14 $87.30 $91.66 $96.25 SERVICE CENTER SUPERINTENDENT $81.28 $85.34 $89.61 $94.09 $98.79 SPECIAL PROJECT EXECUTIVE $121.24 $127.30 $133.67 $140.36 $147.37 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER $91.72 $96.31 $101.13 $106.18 $111.49 WEB SPECIALIST $55.61 $58.39 $61.31 $64.38 $67.60

Year 3 ‐ Salary Effective First Full Pay Period in July 2027

Classification Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5
ACCOUNTANT I $51.91 $54.51 $57.23 $60.10 $63.10
ACCOUNTANT II $57.23 $60.09 $63.09 $66.25 $69.56
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN $51.49 $54.06 $56.77 $59.61 $62.59 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $45.28 $47.55 $49.93 $52.42 $55.04 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $103.41 $108.58 $114.01 $119.71 $125.70 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMM DEV $101.15 $106.21 $111.52 $117.09 $122.95 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER $83.19 $87.35 $91.72 $96.30 $101.12 ASST DIR PUBLIC WORKS ENG $105.23 $110.49 $116.01 $121.82 $127.91 ASST DIR RECREATION COMM SVCS $101.15 $106.21 $111.52 $117.09 $122.95 BUDGET MANAGER $94.58 $99.31 $104.27 $109.49 $114.96
BUILDING OFFICIAL $95.06 $99.81 $104.80 $110.04 $115.54 BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $73.40 $77.07 $80.92 $84.97 $89.21 CAPITAL IMPV PROGRAM MGR $94.48 $99.20 $104.16 $109.37 $114.84 CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 CITY CLERK $84.36 $88.57 $93.00 $97.65 $102.54
CITY ENGINEER $105.23 $110.49 $116.01 $121.82 $127.91
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR $82.23 $86.35 $90.66 $95.20 $99.96 COMMS AND MARKETING COORDINATOR $68.85 $72.29 $75.91 $79.70 $83.69 COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDINATOR $52.20 $54.81 $57.55 $60.43 $63.45 DEPARTMENT HEAD $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 376
CC 09-03-2025
376 of 551

43 DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL $82.23 $86.35 $90.66 $95.20 $99.96 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY $74.41 $78.13 $82.04 $86.14 $90.44 DEPUTY CITY CLERK $60.19 $63.20 $66.36 $69.68 $73.17
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER $101.15 $106.21 $111.52 $117.09 $122.95 DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICES $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPMENT $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $128.53 $134.96 $141.70 $148.79 $156.23 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 $105.12 $110.37 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $73.81 $77.50 $81.38 $85.45 $89.72 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MANAGER $94.48 $99.20 $104.16 $109.37 $114.84 EXEC ASST TO CITY MANAGER $53.21 $55.87 $58.66 $61.60 $64.68 EXEC ASST TO THE CITY ATTNY $51.90 $54.51 $57.23 $60.08 $63.10 FINANCE MANAGER $94.58 $99.31 $104.27 $109.49 $114.96
GIS COORDINATOR $54.26 $56.98 $59.83 $62.82 $65.96
GIS PROGRAM MANAGER $93.48 $98.15 $103.06 $108.21 $113.62 HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST I $62.45 $65.57 $68.85 $72.29 $75.90 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II $68.85 $72.29 $75.90 $79.70 $83.68 HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $37.60 $39.48 $41.46 $43.53 $45.71 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $94.58 $99.31 $104.27 $109.49 $114.96 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN $51.49 $54.06 $56.77 $59.61 $62.59 I.T. ASSISTANT $50.64 $53.17 $55.83 $58.62 $61.55
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MGR $93.48 $98.15 $103.06 $108.21 $113.62 LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER $53.61 $56.29 $59.10 $62.06 $65.16 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $62.98 $66.13 $69.44 $72.91 $76.56
NETWORK SPECIALIST $64.78 $68.02 $71.42 $74.99 $78.74
PARK RESTORATION IMPV MGR $88.37 $92.78 $97.42 $102.29 $107.41 PERMIT CENTER MANAGER $82.23 $86.35 $90.66 $95.20 $99.96 PLANNING MANAGER $95.06 $99.81 $104.80 $110.04 $115.54
PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER $81.25 $85.31 $89.58 $94.06 $98.76 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER $81.16 $85.22 $89.48 $93.95 $98.65 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER $77.67 $81.56 $85.64 $89.92 $94.41 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR $65.47 $68.75 $72.18 $75.79 $79.58 PURCHASING MANAGER $94.58 $99.31 $104.27 $109.49 $114.96 RECREATION MANAGER $66.84 $70.19 $73.69 $77.38 $81.25
RECREATION SUPERVISOR $60.63 $63.66 $66.84 $70.19 $73.69 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $66.25 $69.57 $73.05 $76.70 $80.53
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $113.77 $119.45 $125.43 $131.70 $138.28 SENIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST $78.53 $82.46 $86.58 $90.91 $95.46 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER $88.74 $93.17 $97.83 $102.72 $107.86 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST $68.85 $72.29 $75.91 $79.70 $83.69 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MGR $81.56 $85.64 $89.92 $94.41 $99.13 377
CC 09-03-2025
377 of 551

44 SERVICE CENTER SUPERINTENDENT $83.72 $87.90 $92.30 $96.91 $101.76 SPECIAL PROJECT EXECUTIVE $124.88 $131.12 $137.68 $144.57 $151.79 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER $94.48 $99.20 $104.16 $109.37 $114.84 WEB SPECIALIST $57.28 $60.14 $63.15 $66.31 $69.62

378
CC 09-03-2025
378 of 551
RESOLUTION NO. 25-________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAM

WHEREAS the City Council desires to revise the classification plan and salary schedule in the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program adopted by City Council Resolution No. 25-___.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that

1. The City Council hereby adopts the revised classification plan and salary schedule for unrepresented employees, as shown in Attachment A.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to update the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Programs to incorporate the revised classification plan and salary schedule.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of September 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

379
CC 09-03-2025
379 of 551

RESOLUTION NO. 25-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BY

APPROPRIATING, TRANSFERRING, AND UNAPPROPRIATING MONIES

FOR SPECIFIED FUNDS

WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government depends on a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and

WHEREAS, accomplishing City Council directives, projects and programs, and performing staff duties and responsibilities likewise depends on the monies available for that purpose; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the balances from the funds specified in this resolution are adequate to cover the proposed amen ded appropriations, and therefore recommends the fund reallocations described herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the recommended fund reallocations and ratifies the attached amended appropriations as set forth in Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of September 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

380
CC 09-03-2025
380 of 551
Resolution No. __________________

SIGNED:

________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

381
CC 09-03-2025
381 of 551

Exhibit A

Appropriation
Amendment by Fund
Appropriation
Amendment
Revenue
Amendment
Fund Balance
(Use of)
General Fund 1,014,271 - (1,014,271)
Special Revenue Funds 75,530 - (75,530) Capital Project Funds - -
Enterprise Funds 27,695 - (27,695)
Internal Service Funds 98,977 - (98,977) Total Appropriation
Amendment All Funds $ 1,216,473 $ - $ (1,216,473)

382
CC 09-03-2025
382 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14268 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 15.

Subject: First Amendment to Affordable Housing Covenant and Restriction on Sale Price (“ First Amendment”) and Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance with Trustor Consent (“ Reconveyance”) with respect to the Nineteen800 project at 19800 Vallco Parkway (“Project”).

1. Approve both the First Amendment and Reconveyance provided herewith and authorize the City Manager to execute the documents and deliver them for recordation.

2. Authorize the City Attorney to make minor modifications to the First Amendment and Reconveyance as deemed necessary to effectuate the intent of the parties.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
383
CC 09-03-2025
383 of 551

01276.0013 2034707.2 1

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025
Subject:

First Amendment to Affordable Housing Covenant and Restriction on Sale Price (“First Amendment”) and Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance with Trustor Consent (“Reconveyance”) with respect to the Nineteen800 project at 19800 Vallco Parkway (“Project”).

Recommended Action:

1. Approve both the First Amendment and Reconveyance provided herewith and authorize the City Manager to execute the documents and deliver them for recordation.

2. Authorize the City Attorney to make minor modifications to the First Amendment and Reconveyance as deemed necessary to effectuate the intent of the parties.

Background:

The City approved the development of 204 residential units for the Project and required that 31 units (“AH Units”) be restricted for sale to moderate income households pursuant to that certain Affordable Housing Covenant and Restriction on Sale Price dated March 17, 2015 and recorded on April 10, 2015 as Instrument No. 22913410 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County (“Covenant Agreement”). The Covenant Agreement was secured by that certain Performance Deed of Trust dated March 17, 2015 and recorded on April 10, 2015 as Instrument No. 22913411 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County (“Deed of Trust”).

Developer paid an in lieu fee to allow Developer to rent the restricted units while Developer retained ownership of the AH Units.

384
CC 09-03-2025
384 of 551

01276.0013 2034707.2
Developer previously obtained a loan of $80M to which the City subordinated the Deed of Trust. Developer is refinancing that loan and has requested that the City again subordinate the Deed of Trust to the new loan.

City is not legally required to subordinate the Covenant Agreement nor the Deed of Trust to the proposed refinancing.

Reason for Recommendation and Available Options

1. If the Developer was to default under the Covenant Agreement, the City would be required under California law to start foreclosure under the Deed of Trust. As there is no liquidated amount specified in the documents, the City would be required to use judicial foreclosure so the Court could determine the amount secured, which would be the amount that the Developer could pay to secure the release of the Deed of Trust. This would be the only remedy, rendering the Covenant Agreement unenforceable against the AH Units.

2. Under California law, the City cannot unilaterally waive the deed of trust and pursue other remedies such as specific performance of the Covenant Agreement.

3. As the City should have the choice of remedies including specific performance of the Covenant Agreement and the sale of the AH Units, the Deed of Trust should be reconveyed.

4. Developer has recently requested that the City subordinate the Deed of Trust to its new $80M refinancing. Staff notified Developer that City is not legally required to subordinate either the Covenant Agreement or the Deed of Trust.

5. As noted above, for the City to have the right to seek specific performance of the Covenant Agreement, the Deed of Trust should be reconveyed. Such reconveyance requires the mutual consent by the Developer as the trustor.

Staff Recommendation:

Approve the recommended action stated above.

Other Available Options:

1. Do not amend the Covenant Agreement, do not reconvey the Deed of Trust and do not subordinate the Deed of Trust. This would frustrate the Project’s refinancing.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions and allow the Covenant Agreement and Deed of Trust to remain in effect. This would put the Covenant Agreement’s enforceability at risk in the case of a default.

Sustainability Impact
385
CC 09-03-2025
385 of 551

01276.0013 2034707.2
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact:

None

City Work Program Item/Description
None

Council Goal
None

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager

Attachments:

A – First Amendment of Affordable Housing Covenant and Restriction on Sale Price
B – Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance with Trustor Consent

386
CC 09-03-2025
386 of 551
387
CC 09-03-2025
387 of 551
388
CC 09-03-2025
388 of 551
389
CC 09-03-2025
389 of 551
390
CC 09-03-2025
390 of 551
391
CC 09-03-2025
391 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14040 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 16.

Subject: Introduce amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 19.08 (Definitions), and 19.112 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and Associated Environmental Review. (Application No. MCA-2025-001; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
That the City Council Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-2274 (Attachment A): “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Municipal Code Chapters 19.08 (Definitions), and 19.112 (Accessory Dwelling Units) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.” CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
392
CC 09-03-2025
392 of 551

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: September 3, 2025
Subject
Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 19.08 (Definitions), and 19.112 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and Associated Environmental Review. (Application No. MCA -2025-001; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action
That the City Council Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-____ (Attachment A): “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Municipal Code Chapters 19.08 (Definitions), and 19.112 (Accessory Dwelling Units) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.” Background
On February 29, 2024, the City of Cupertino, in accordance with Government Code section 66326, subdivision (a) 1, submitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance No. 23 -2254, adopted February 23, 2024, to the California Department o f Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD reviewed the Ordinance and summarized their written findings in a letter dated April 24, 2025 (Attachment B). HCD identified some areas where it believed the City’s code needs to be updated. Upon review it was found that many of HCD’s conclusions in finding the City’s Municipal Code different from state law were because the requirements were not in effect or adopted by the state when the City last amended its ordinance.

Pursuant to Government Code section 6632 6, subdivision (b)(1), the City provided a written response to HCD’s findings on May 19, 2025. In th at letter, the City stated its intent to comply with all the provisions of State Law as it relates to Accessory Dwelling Units. The City informed HCD about its intent to amend the Municipal Code by September 30, 2025, to address items listed in HCD’s letter to the City as it relates to California Government Code Sections 66310 – 66342.

Planning Commission Recommendation

1 A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 66314 to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. 393
CC 09-03-2025
393 of 551
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Municipal Code Amendments at its July 8, 2025 meeting and recommended (4-0, Fung Absent ) that City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code per Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14 (Attachment C) and find the actions exempt from CEQA, with the following modifications:
 Remove the proposed design standard for Non-Streamlined ADUs in Table 19.112.040(I)(a) The Planning Commission’s modification ha s been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance. The changes discussed in the Analysis section below, are incorporated in Attachment A and have been identified with strikethroughs and underlines (as appropriate) in Attachment D. Note that one notable amendment has been made to the draft ordinance after the Planning Commission’s recommendation, which is further discussed below.

Analysis
A. Edits to address HCD comments
HCD’s letter to the City included findings of non -compliance with current State laws as they relate to ADUs. These include conflicts with recently adopted State laws, statutory numbering, and conformance with various standards as it relates to California G overnment Code Sections 66310 – 66342.

1. Senate Bill (SB) 1211 & Assembly Bill (AB) 2533
Both State bills went into effect January 1, 2025, and were not in effect when the City last updated its ordinance and submitted it for HCD’s review in February 2024. The City recognizes the need to update the ADU ordinance to reflect these new requirements. The following sections of Chapter 19.112 Accessory Dwelling Units were revised to address the passage of SB 1211 and AB 2533:
a. SB 1211: Table 19.112.030B Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Existing Multi‐Family Residential Uses is modified to allow up to eight (8) detached units on existing multi-family lots. However, the number of ADUs allowable pursuant to this clause shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. On a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, not more than two detached ADUs. b. AB2533: Section 19.112.050 Review Process was updated to reflect changes in the Government Code related to the p ermit review thresholds for applications received by the City for unpermitted ADUs and JADUs, particularly those constructed prior to January 1, 2020, and setting additional restrictions for the City’s review of ADU and JADU applications. For example, the City may not require correction of non-conforming zoning violations (as defined by state law) in conjunction with the approval of a permit for either an ADU or a JADU and may not require the correction of building standard violations or unpermitted structu res which are not a threat to public health and safety or are not affected by the construction of a JADU, in conjunction with the approval of a permit for a JADU.
394
CC 09-03-2025
394 of 551

2. Updated References to Government Code Sections and other minor corrections/clarifications Government Code Sections related to ADUs were updated by the state on March 25, 2024, after the City had last amended its ordinance and submitted it for HCD’s review. All Government Code Section references in Chapters 19.08 and 19.112 have been updated.

In addition, minor grammatical errors and language from the Government Code have been added to the City’s ordinance – including a requirement that an ADU cannot receive a certificate of occupancy before any principal unit on the property. Finally, an Enforcem ent section (Section 19.112.070) has been added to reference new requirements of state law which allow applicants to request deferral of enforcement of building code standards in some cases.

3. Multi-Family ADU Development
These standards apply to ADUs proposed on multifamily properties, whether existing or proposed.
a. Applicable standards: State law defines two or more existing or proposed attached primary dwellings on the same lot, such as duplexes, as multifamily dwellings. However, in the City’s Municipal Code, duplexes were treated in the same manner as single-family homes in Table 19.112.030A Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single‐Family Residential Uses since the City allowed a different mix of ADUs than allowed under state law at the time the City’s ordinance was adopted in February 2024. However, because state law has been amended since then, references to “Duplexes” in Table 19.112.030A Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single‐Family Residential Uses have been removed. Therefore, ADUs proposed on all properties with existing and proposed duplexes will be subject to the multi-family standards of CMC 19.112.
b. Size of ADUs on multi-family properties: In addition to the changes to Table 19.112.030B as they relate to SB 1211, ADUs on multifamily properties are subject to the standards specifically outlined in Government Code sectio n 66323(a)(1) -(4). Additionally, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) states, “A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the req uirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” Since Government Code section 66323(a)(1) through (4) do not identify a limit on ADU size, HCD has identified that the City’s Municipal Code conflicts with state law. As a result, t he limit of 1,200 square feet for detached ADUs for multi-family developments has been removed.

4. Non-Streamlined ADUs
Non-streamlined ADUs are defined as ADUs, whether attached and detached to a single - family residence, that are over 800 square feet. HCD i dentified changes to Table 19.112.040:

Site Development Regulations for Non‐Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Created by New 395
CC 09-03-2025
395 of 551
Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit the following to address the following:
a. Parking
State law includes a new requirement that if an applicant submits an ADU for property in conjunction with a new single -family home, the City may not require parking if the site or the ADU satisfies the other criteria listed in Table 19.112.040(F)(1). This has been added to Table 19.112.040.
b. Structure Design
Section 19.112.040(I) currently requires that the ADU “structure design” “Should be compatible with the architectural style and materials of the principal structure.” HCD states that this language is not objective and, therefore, should be amended.

Table 19.112.040(I) has been modified to require the design of large, non -streamlined ADUs located in certain architecturally sensitive areas of town identified below to match the architectural style identified in the policy documents for these areas:
• Planned Development (P)
• Eichler (R1-e)
• Monta Vista Design Guidelines
• Residential Hillside (RHS)
• Single Family Residential District with Semi-Rural Characteristics (R1-a) As mentioned above, the Planning Commission recommended removing the standard to require compatible design for ADUs greater than 800 sq. ft. in size and the principle dwelling unit in single-family zoned districts not specifically listed above . Staff feels the recommendation alleviates potential hardships on residents when designing their ADUs. These standards are not included in the draft ordinance (Attachment A).

B. Post Planning Commission Recommendation Revision for Housing Element Compliance/Duplex The Housing Element adopted by the City Council on May 14, 2024, and determined to be in substantial compliance with state law by HCD on September 4, 2024, contains a strategy under Goal HE-1: An adequate supply of residential units for all economic segments, that states:

Strategy HE-1.3.8: Accessory Dwelling Units - a maximum of up to two 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs or conversion ADUs on all duplex zoned properties, which is in excess of the number of ADUs allowed under state law.

The draft ordinance approved by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2025 inadvertently removed the local allowance duplexes which allow for multiple streamlined ADUs on duplex zoned sights, which is b eyond the requirements of state ADU law . Staff has included this standard in the draft ordinance under Table 19.112.030B: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Existing Multi‐Family Residential Uses in order to ensure the city’s continued consistency with its Housing Element.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
396
CC 09-03-2025
396 of 551
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
California Environmental Quality Act
This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect o n the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the amendments to the City Code would have no or only a de minimis impact on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A. Draft Ordinance (clean)
B. Letter from the CA Department of Housing and Community Development dated April 24, 2025. (Review of Cupertino’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 66310 - 66342))
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14
D. Draft Ordinance (redline)

397
CC 09-03-2025
397 of 551
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.08, AND CHAPTER 19.112 REGARDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) LAWS

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. State Law changes have rendered the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance (CMC

19.112) obsolete and unenforceable.

2. The City Council of the City of Cupertino held a duly noticed public hearing on September 3, 2025, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is further amended 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. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.
398
CC 09-03-2025
398 of 551
SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

Determine that Project is exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the amendments to the City Code would have no or only a de minimis impact on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment. The proposed ordinance is further exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Public Resources Code section 21080.17, which provid es a statutory CEQA exemption to ADU ordinances adopted to implement Government Code Sec. 65852.2.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

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

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 3, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 16, 2025 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

399
CC 09-03-2025
399 of 551

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Floy Andrews, City Attorney

Date
400
CC 09-03-2025
400 of 551
Ordinance No.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Amendments to Title 19 concerning Accessory Dwelling Units Chapter 19.08: Definitions
“Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

1. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.

2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. Junior accessory dwelling units must include an efficiency kitchen, which must include both a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the unit. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure, as defined in California Government Code Section 66333.

Chapter 19.112: Accessory Dwelling Units

19.112.010 Purpose; Incorporation by Reference; Consistency with State Law.

The purpose of this chapter is to promote the goal of affordable housing within the City through provision of additional housing in certain residential, agricultural residential, and mixed‐use zoning districts in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts of accessory dwelling units on neighborhoods. Unless otherwise defined in this Title, all terms used in this Chapter shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with Government Code Sections 66310 - 66342. In the event of a conflict between this Chapter and the requirements of State law, the requirements of State law, including the requirements of Government Code Sections 66310 - 66342, shall prevail.

19.112.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations.

Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary:

A. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on lots within any residential or mixed‐ use residential zoning district. The lot must have an existing single family dwelling unit or if zoned multi‐family or mixed use residential, at least one 401
CC 09-03-2025
401 of 551
Ordinance No.

residential unit. If the lot is vacant, an accessory dwelling unit may only be proposed in conjunction with the development of at least one residential unit.

Notwithstanding the underlying zoning, an accessory dwelling unit developed pursuant to this chapter does not cause the lot upon which it is located to exceed its maximum allowable density on the lot.

B. Accessory dwelling units, except those pursuant to Government Code Section 66323, must comply with the site development regulations and guideline specified in those zoning districts for dwelling units, including but not limited to: lot coverage; floor area ratio; height; setbacks; landscape; the regulations contained in this chapter; Chapter 19.100, Accessory Structures/Buildings; and Chapter 19.124, Parking; except as those standards are modified by this chapter.

C. No impact fees, as defined in Government Code Section 66324(c)(2) shall be imposed on any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit with a gross floor area of less than 750 square feet. Impact fees imposed on accessory dwelling units greater than or equal to 750 feet shall be charged proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit in compliance with Government Code Section 66324(c)(1).

D. Accessory dwelling units may be rented separately from the single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling structure but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other dwellings on the lot, except pursuant to Government Code Section 66340 – 66342. Any accessory dwelling unit, including a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), shall not be used as a rental for a term less than 30 days.

E. For JADUs, either the single-family residence or JADU must be owner-occupied, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Further, the owner shall record a deed restriction, expressly enforceable against future purchasers, containing the following: (a) a prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the single-family residence, and (b) a restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU to conform to this section.

F. A local agency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling.

19.112.030 Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units & Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66323, the City shall approve the following streamlined accessory dwelling units if the specified development standards and use restrictions are met, as identified in:

A. Table 19.112.030A for single‐family residential uses and B. Table 19.112.030B for multi‐family residential uses. 402
CC 09-03-2025
402 of 551
Ordinance No.

Table 19.112.030A: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Single‐Family Residential Uses
Conversion of space within principal
dwelling unit or accessory structures
New Construction Attached or
Detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit ≤ 800 s.f.

1. Size of living space, exclusive of decks
a. Minimum size 150 s.f.
b. Maximum size No size limitation as long as the unit:
i. Is wholly within the space of a
proposed or existing single‐family
dwelling or the existing space of an
accessory structure, and
ii. Does not require either:
• An addition of more than 150
square feet to an existing accessory
structure to accommodate ingress
and egress only, or
• Any addition to an existing single‐
family dwelling unit.
800 s.f.

2. Number of
Units
Maximum three ADUs per single‐family residential lot in any combination of the following:
 Attached ADU,
 Conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),
 Detached ADU, or
 Junior ADU

3. Setbacks Per the underlying zoning district except
that if the existing structures do not meet
these standards, the side and rear
setbacks shall be sufficient for fire safety
and life safety.
a. At least four feet from the rear
and side lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback
standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.
403
CC 09-03-2025
403 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of space within principal
dwelling unit or accessory structures
New Construction Attached or
Detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit ≤ 800 s.f.

4. Height The conversion shall not change the
height of the existing structure.
a. 18 feet for detached ADU1
b. If accessory dwelling unit is
attached to principal dwelling, 25
feet or the height limitations
applicable to the principal
dwelling, whichever is lower.
c. An applicant alternatively may
elect to follow the height
standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.

5. Second‐story
accessory
dwelling unit
Allowed if the unit is a conversion of
existing second story portion of the
principal dwelling unit.

Allowed

6. Parking for
accessory
dwelling unit
None None

7. Direct outside
access
Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through the principal dwelling unit.

8. Separation from
principal
dwelling unit
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. With the exception of a
JADU that has a shared bathroom with
the principal dwelling unit, no interior
doors or other connections between the
units are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
unit

1. An additional two feet in height (from 18 to 20 feet) for ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor is permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

Table 19.112.030B: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Existing Multi‐Family Residential Uses

404
CC 09-03-2025
404 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of interior space and
JADUs within multifamily
dwelling structures
Detached, and Attached New
Construction

1. Location a. Conversion of space within
existing dwelling structures that
is not used as livable space (e.g.
existing units) including, but not
limited to, storage rooms, boiler
rooms, passageways, attics,
basements, or garages, as long
as the unit meets building
standards for dwellings.
b. JADUs permitted only in
duplexes
Must be detached from the multi‐
family dwelling structure(s) other
than for duplex zoned properties,
except attached ADUs are allowed
for duplex zoned properties.

2. Maximum Number of Units

a. Multifamily
developments
other than
duplex zoned
properties
The greater of:
 25 percent of the existing
number of primary dwelling
units, or
 One accessory dwelling unit
i. On a lot with an existing multi-
family dwelling, the lesser of:
 Eight detached accessory
dwelling units and
 the number of existing multi-
family units on the lot.
ii. On a lot with a proposed
multifamily dwelling, not more
than two detached ADUs.

b. Duplex zoned
properties
Up to a maximum of two accessory dwelling units in any combination of the following:
 Attached ADU,
 Conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),
 Detached ADU, or
 Junior ADU

3. Minimum Size 150 s.f.

4. Maximum Size  No size limitation
 For duplex zoned properties, attached ADUs are limited to 800 s.f. 405
CC 09-03-2025
405 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of interior space and
JADUs within multifamily
dwelling structures
Detached, and Attached New
Construction

5. Setbacks The accessory dwelling unit shall
not increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. Located at least four feet from the
side and rear lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may elect
to follow the setback and height
standards for accessory structures
in Chapter 19.100.

6. Height The accessory dwelling unit shall
not increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. 18 feet1
b. An applicant alternatively may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.

7. Separation from
principal dwelling
units
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. No interior doors
or other connections between the
units are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
units.

1. An additional two feet in height (from 18 to 20 feet) for ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor is permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

19.112.040 Site Development Regulations for Non‐Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units.

A. This section shall govern applications for ADUs and JADUs that do not qualify for approval under Section 19.112.030 or Government Code section 66323 and for which the city may impose local standards pursuant to Government Code section 66314 – 66322. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square feet, at the heights stated in Section 19.112.030(A) and 19.112.030(B), with a four‐foot side and rear setbacks.

B. The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Section 19.112.040. These regulations do not limit the height of existing structures converted into ADU/JADUs unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond any existing legal, non‐conforming condition.

Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non‐Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit

406
CC 09-03-2025
406 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f. Detached > 800 s.f.

A. Number of Units 1. A maximum of three ADUs per single-family lot in any combination of the following, subject to the underlying zoning standards for lot coverage, floor area, open space, and setback:
 No more than one attached ADU
 No more than one conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),  No more than one detached ADU, or
 No more than one Junior ADU

2. Nothing in this Section shall permit the development of more than three ADUs or Junior ADUs on any single‐family lot. Non‐ streamlined ADU provisions cannot be co mbined with streamlined provisions to add more than a total of three ADUs.

B. Size of living space, exclusive of decks

1. Minimum size 150 s.f.

2. Maximum size a. Studios/one‐bedroom unit – 850 s.f.; two or more‐bedroom unit – 1,000 s.f.; and
b. Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling
c. Lot coverage, floor area, and open space standards per the underlying zoning apply to ADUs greater than 800 s.f. See Table

19.112.030 A for requirements related to ADUs less than or equal to 800 s.f.

C. Setbacks 1 Per the underlying zoning
district, except the required side
and rear setbacks are modified to
four feet.

The proposed structure must
comply with the setback standards
for accessory structures in Chapter

19.100, except the street side
setbacks are modified to four feet.

D. Height 25 feet or the height limitations
applicable to the principal
dwelling, whichever is lower.

The proposed structure must
comply with the height standards
for accessory structures in Chapter

19.100, except that a maximum
height of 18 feet is allowed within
half a mile of a major transit stop or
transit corridor.

E. Second‐story accessory
dwelling units
Allowed within one half mile of a major transit stop or transit corridor.

F. Parking
407
CC 09-03-2025
407 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f. Detached > 800 s.f.

1. Parking for
accessory dwelling unit
One additional off‐street parking space shall be provided, if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off‐street parking spaces for the applicable residential zoning district in which it is located, as required in Chapter 19.124, and none if the accessory dwelling unit meets one of the following requirements:
a. Located within one‐half (1/2) mile of a public transit stop; or b. Located within one block of a car share vehicle pick‐up location; or c. Located in an architecturally and historically significant historic district; or
d. The occupant of the unit is not allowed/offered a required on‐ street parking permit; or
e. Is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure or
f. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the same lot provided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed above.

2. Demolition or
conversion of existing
covered, uncovered or
enclosed parking spaces
for an accessory
dwelling unit
No replacement parking spaces are required.

G. Direct outside access Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through the principal dwelling unit.

H. Screening from public
street
All access to accessory dwelling units shall be on a different wall plane than the access to the principal dwelling unit.

I. Structure Design a. Shall match the exterior and roofing materials, window style, exterior lighting and exterior colors of the principal structure. b. Shall meet the design standards when located within any one of the following zoning districts:
 Planned Development (P)
 Eichler (R1-e)
 Monta Vista Design Guidelines
 Residential Hillside (RHS)
 Single Family Residential District with Semi-Rural
Characteristics (R1-a)
408
CC 09-03-2025
408 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f. Detached > 800 s.f.

J. Separation from
principal dwelling unit
The ADU must be an independent
unit. No interior doors or other
connections between the ADU
and the principal dwelling unit
are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
unit.

1. No setback is required for an accessory dwelling unit located within existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an accessory dwelling unit that replaces an existing structure and is located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced.

19.112.050 Review Process.

A. Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed ministerially without discretionary review and must be approved or denied within the time frame specified in Government Code Section 66317.

B. Nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations or unpermitted structures:

1. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions (as defined in Government Code Section 66313) shall not be required as a condition of approval of a permit for the creation of an ADU or a JADU.

2. A permit for an ADU or a JADU will not be denied due to the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or other unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and that are not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

C. Unpermitted ADU or JADU: Any ADU created within the City shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and state law, and must obtain a building permit confirming compliance with all requirements, except that:

1. A permit to legalize an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020 may not be denied, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
a. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards, or b. The ADU or JADU does not comply with state ADU or JADU law (Government Code Section 66313-66339) or this chapter.

2. Notwithstanding the above, a permit to legalize an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020 may be denied, if the City makes a finding that correcting violations of applicable building standards, state ADU/JADU law, and/or this municipal code, is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3. 409
CC 09-03-2025
409 of 551
Ordinance No.

3. Notwithstanding subsection (C)(1) or (C)(2) above, a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 shall not be permitted.

19.112.060 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited on Certain Lots.

Notwithstanding Government Code Section 66313 - 66339 or any provision of this Chapter, no accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any lot in single‐family residence district (R‐1 or RHS) if a lot split has been approved pursuant to Section 18.12.70 and one or more residential units has been approved for construction pursuant to Section 19.28.150 or 19.40.090 ( Government Code Section 65852.21).

19.112.070 Enforcement.

A. Violations of this Chapter shall be enforced as authorized by this Municipal Code and applicable provisions of state law.

B. Enforcement of Building Code standards: In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an ADU described below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an ADU for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code:

1. The ADU was built before January 1, 2020.

2. The ADU was built on or after January 1, 2020, and at the time the ADU was built, the City had a noncompliant ADU ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
410
CC 09-03-2025
410 of 551
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

April 24, 2025

Benjamin Fu, Director
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014

Dear Benjamin Fu:

RE: Review of Cupertino’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance under State ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 66310 - 66342)

Thank you for submitting the City of Cupertino ADU Ordinance No. 23-2254 (Ordinance), adopted February 23, 2024, to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Ordinance was received on February 29, 2024. HCD has reviewed the Ordinance and submits these written findings pursuant to Government Code section 66326, subdivision (a). HCD finds that the Ordinance fails to comply with State ADU Laws in the manner noted below. Pursuant to Government Code section 66326, subdivision (b)(1), the City has up to 30 days to respond to these findings.

Accordingly, the City must provide a written response to these findings no later than May 24, 2025.

The Ordinance addresses many statutory requirements; however, HCD finds that the Ordinance does not comply with State ADU Law as follows:

1. Senate Bill (SB) 1211 (Chapter 296, § 3, Statutes of 2024) – As of January 1, 2025, the Legislature changed Government Code section 66323. Subdivision (a)(4)(A)(ii) and (iii), now allows for the following:
ο (ii) On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, not more than eight detached ADUs. However, the number of ADUs allowable pursuant to this clause shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. ο (iii) On a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, not more than two detached ADUs.

2. Assembly Bill (AB) 2533 (Chapter 834, Statutes of 2024) - As of January 1, 2025, there are changes to Government Code section 66332. Subdivisions (a) and (b) were changed and subdivisions (d) – (f) were added. Changes include permitting previously unpermitted ADUs, adding the same protections for JADUs, and 411
CC 09-03-2025
411 of 551
Benjamin Fu, Director

setting additional requirements for local agencies. The County should review these new requirements and adjust the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law.

3. Statutory Numbering - The Ordinance contains several references to code sections that were deleted by SB 477, effective March 25, 2024. These include Government Code sections 65852.2, 65852.22 and 65852.26. The contents of these sections were relocated to Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 13 (sections 66310-66342, see Enclosure). The County must amend the Ordinance to refer to the correct Government Code sections.

4. Sections 19.112.020 2. and 19.112.020 5. – Compliance with Underlying Zoning – The Ordinance states that all ADUs in Cupertino must comply with “…site development regulations and guideline [sic] specified in those zoning districts for dwelling units….” However, State ADU Law requires (1) objective development standards, and (2) exempts ADUs created per Government Code section 66323 from underlying site development regulations and zoning development and design standards. Government Code section 66314, subdivision (b), requires local ADU ordinances to impose objective standards, defined in part as only those requirements that are “…knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.”
1 The Ordinance does not
refer to the specific regulations or guidelines that must be complied with. Only objective standards may be applied, and those objective standards authorized by section 66314 are not applicable to units described in Government Code section 66323.2 Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to refer to the applicable objective underlying regulations, guidelines or policies for an ADU permit and must account for the exemptions for 66323 units.

5. Section 19.112.030A.2 – Number of Units – The Ordinance states a “maximum [of] two ADUs per duplex lot.” However, lots that contain two or more existing or proposed attached primary dwellings on the same lot, such as duplexes, are multifamily dwellings. Under State ADU Law, a lot with a proposed or existing duplex not created through the provisions of Government Code section 65852.21, may create up to (1) eight detached ADUs, and (2) at least one ADU converted from non-livable space that meets “state building standards for dwellings.”3 The Ordinance as written limits the number of ADUs that can be created on lots with existing or proposed duplexes. Therefore, the City must amend the Ordinance to provide for the appropriate number of ADUs allowable on a lot with proposed or existing multifamily dwelling structures.

1 Gov. Code, § 66313, subd. (i).
2 Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b).
3 Gov. Code, § 66323, subds. (a)(3)(A) and (a)(4)(A).
412
CC 09-03-2025
412 of 551
Benjamin Fu, Director

6. Section 19.112.030 B. 4. – Maximum Size, Detached Multifamily ADUs – The Ordinanc
e indicates the maximum size of a detached ADU on a lot with a propos
ed or existing multifamily dwelling is limited to “1,200 s.f.”. However, Government Code section 66323, subdivision (b) states, “A local agency shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by
this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).” Therefore, the maximum
sizes stated in this section may not apply to any unit created subject to Government Code section 66323, subdivision (a)(4). The City must amend the ordinanc
e to remove the restriction on maximum size for detached ADUs on lots w
ith existing or proposed multifamily dwellings.

7. Section 19.112.040 F.1. – Parking – The Ordinance does not provide for all of t
he exemptions to parking requirements pursuant to Government Code section 66322,
subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(6): “(6) When a permit application for an ac
cessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this subdivision.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the City must ame
nd the Ordinance to add the exemption in Government Code section 66323, subdivision (6).

8. Section 19.112.040 I. – Structure Design – The Ordinance states that structure design
“Should be compatible with the architectural style and materials of the principal
structure.” However, Government Code section 66314, subdivision (b)(1),
allows local jurisdictions to only “[i]mpose objective standards on accessory
dwelling units….” (Emphasis added.) Government Code section 66313,
subdivision (h), defines “objective standards” as “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public
official prior to submittal.” The Ordinance's requirement that an ADU "should be compatible..."
is subjective and therefore may not be imposed. The
City
must amend this section to include only objective standards.

The Cit
y has two options in response to this letter.4 The City can either amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law5 or adopt the Ordinance without changes and include findings in its resolution adopting the Ordinance that explain the reasons the City believes that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings.6 If the City fails to take either course of action and bring the Ordinance into compliance 4 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1).
5 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(A).
6 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (b)(2)(B).
413
CC 09-03-2025
413 of 551
Benjamin Fu, Director

with State ADU Law, HCD must notify the City and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the City is in violation of State ADU Law. 7 HCD appreciates the City’s efforts in the preparation and adoption of the Ordinance and welcomes the opportunity to assist the City in fully complying with State ADU Law.

Please feel free to contact Michael McLaughlin at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jamie Candelaria
Senior Housing Accountability Manager
Housing Policy Development Division

7 Gov. Code, § 66326, subd. (c)(1).
414
CC 09-03-2025
414 of 551
State ADU/JADU Law Statutory Conversion Table
New Government Code Sections Previous Government Code Sections Article 1. General Provisions
66310 65852.150 (a)
66311 65852.150 (b)
66312 65852.150 (c)
66313 General Definition Section
65852.2 (j)
65852.22 (j)
Article 2. Accessory Dwelling Unit Approvals
66314 65852.2(a)(1)(A), (D)(i)-(xii), (a)(4)-(5)
66315 65852.2 (a)(8)
66316 65852.2 (a)(6)
66317 65852.2 (a)(3), (a)(7)
66318 65852.2 (a)(9), 65852.2 (a)(2)
66319 65852.2 (a)(10)
66320 65852.2 (b)
66321 65852.2 (c)
66322 65852.2 (d)
66323 65852.2 (e)
66324 65852.2 (f)
66325 65852.2 (g)
66326 65852.2 (h)
66327 65852.2 (i)
66328 65852.2 (k)
66329 65852.2 (l)
66330 65852.2 (m)
66331 65852.2 (n)
66332 65852.23.

Article 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
66333 65852.22 (a)
66334 65852.22 (b)
66335 65852.22 (c)
66336 65852.22 (d)
66337 65852.22 (e)
66338 65852.22 (f)-(g)
66339 65852.22 (h)
Article 4. Accessory Dwelling Unit Sales
66340 65852.26 (b)
66341 65852.26 (a)
66342 65852.2 (a)(10)
415
CC 09-03-2025
415 of 551
416
CC 09-03-2025
416 of 551
417
CC 09-03-2025
417 of 551
418
CC 09-03-2025
418 of 551
419
CC 09-03-2025
419 of 551
420
CC 09-03-2025
420 of 551
421
CC 09-03-2025
421 of 551
422
CC 09-03-2025
422 of 551
423
CC 09-03-2025
423 of 551
424
CC 09-03-2025
424 of 551
425
CC 09-03-2025
425 of 551
426
CC 09-03-2025
426 of 551
427
CC 09-03-2025
427 of 551
428
CC 09-03-2025
428 of 551
429
CC 09-03-2025
429 of 551
430
CC 09-03-2025
430 of 551
431
CC 09-03-2025
431 of 551
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.08, AND CHAPTER 19.112 REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) LAWS

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. State Law changes have rendered the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance (CMC

19.112) obsolete and unenforceable.

2. The  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Cupertino  held  a  duly  noticed  public  hearing  on September 3, 2025, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in  connection  with  that  hearing  introduced  this  ordinance  and  waived  the  reading thereof.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.  Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is further amended 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 ordina nce 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  port
ions  of  this  ordinance  should  remain  in  effect  after  the invalid portion has been eliminated.  To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions  shall  be  construed  as  continuations  of  those  provi sions   and  not  as  an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.
432
CC 09-03-2025
432 of 551
SECTION 3:   California  Environmental Quality Act.

Determine that Project is exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and  CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.  CEQA applies  only  to  projects  which  have  the  potential  of  causing  a  significant  effect  on  the environment.  Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.  In this circumstance, the amendments to the City Code would have no or only a de minimis  impact  on  the  environment.  The  foregoing  determination  is  made  by  the  City Council in its independent judgment. The proposed o
rdinance is further exempt from the
California  Environmental  Quality  Act  (“CEQA”)  under  Public  Resources  Code  section 21080.17,  which  pro vides  a  statutory  CEQA  exemption  to  ADU  ordinances  adopted  to implement Government Code Sec. 65852.2.

SECTION 4:  Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5:  Publication.

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

Pursuant  to  Government  Code  Section  36933,  a  summary  of  this  Ordinance  may  be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text.  The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full te xt of the Ordinance  listing  the  names  of  the  City  Council  members  voting  for  and  against  the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 2, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on  September 16, 2025 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

433
CC 09-03-2025
433 of 551

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Floy Andrews, City Attorney

Date
434
CC 09-03-2025
434 of 551
Ordinance No.

ATTACHMENT A

The sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code set forth below are amended or adopted as follows:

Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double‐underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example).  Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance.  Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code.

Where the explanatory text indicates that a new section is being added to the City Code, the new section is shown in plain text.

1. Amendments to Title 19 concerning Accessory Dwelling Units Chapter 19.08: Definitions
“Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

1. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Saf ety Code.

2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single‐family structure. Junior accessory dwelling units must include an efficiency kitchen, which must include both a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the unit. A junior acce
ssory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation
facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure, as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.22 66333.

Chapter 19.112: Accessory Dwelling Units

19.112.010  Purpose; Incorporation by Reference; Consistency with State Law.

The purpose of this chapter is to promote the goal of affordable housing within the City through provision of additional housing in certain residential, agricultural residential, and mixed‐use zoning districts in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts of accessory dwelling units on neighborhoods. Unless otherwise defi ned in
this Title, all terms used in this Chapter shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with Government Code Sections 66310 ‐ 66342 65852.2 and 65852.22. In the event of a conflict between this Chapter and the requirements of State law, the 435
CC 09-03-2025
435 of 551
Ordinance No.

requirements of State law, including the requirements of Government Code Sections 66310 ‐ 66342 65852.2 and 65852.22, shall prevail.

19.112.020 Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations.

Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary:

A. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on lots within any residential or mixed‐ use residential zoning district. The lot must have an existing single family dwelling unit or if zoned multi‐family or mixed use residential, at least one residential unit. If the lot is vacant, an accessory dwelling unit may only be proposed in conjunction with the development of at lea
st one residential unit.

Notwithstanding the underlying zoning, an accessory dwelling unit developed pursuant to this chapter does not cause the lot upon which it is located to exc eed its maximum the allowable density on the lot.

B. Accessory dwelling units, except those pursuant to Government Code Section 66323, must comply with the site development regulations and guideline specified in those zoning districts for dwelling units, including but not limited to: lot coverage; floor area ratio; height; setbacks; landscape; the regulations contained in this chapter; Chapter 19.100, Accessory Structures/Buildings; and Chapter 19.124, Parking; except as those standards are modified by this chapter.

C. No impact fees, as defined in Government Code Section 66324(c)(2) 65852.2(f)(3)(B), shall be imposed on any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit with a gross floor area of less than 750 square feet. Impact fees imposed on accessory dwelling units greater than or equal to 750 feet shall be charged proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit in compliance with Government Code Section 66324(c)(1). 65852.2(f)(3)(A).

D. Accessory dwelling units may be rented separately from the single‐family dwelling or multi‐family dwelling structure but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other dwellings on the lot, except pursuant to Government Code Section 66340 – 66342 65852.26. Any accessory dwelling unit, including a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), shall not be used as a short‐ term rental as a rental for a term less than 30 days.

E. For JADUs, either the single‐family residence or JADU must be owner‐occupied, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Further, the owner shall record a deed restriction, expressly enforceable against future purchasers, containing the following: (a) a prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the single‐family residence, and (b) a restriction on th e size and attributes of the JADU to conform to this section.

F. A local agency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling.
436
CC 09-03-2025
436 of 551
Ordinance No.

19.112.030 Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units & Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66323,65852.2(e), the City shall approve the following streamlined accessory dwelling units if the specified development standards and use restrictions are met, as identified in:

A. Table 19.112.030A for single‐family residential uses and B. Table 19.112.030B for multi‐family residential uses.

Table 19.112.030A: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Un its  Associated with Single‐Family Residential Uses and Duplexes
Conversion of space within principal
dwelling unit or accessory structures
New Construction Attached or
Detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit ≤ 800 s.f.

1.  Size of living space, exclusive of decks
a. Minimum size  150 s.f.
b. Maximum size  No size limitation as long as the unit:
i. Is wholly within the space of a
proposed or existing single‐family
dwelling or the existing space of an
accessory structure, and
ii. Does not require either:
• An addition of more than 150
square feet to an existing accessory
structure to accommod
ate ingress
and egress only, or
• Any addition to an existing single‐
family dwelling unit.
800 s.f.

2.  Number of
Units
Maximum three ADUs per single‐family residential lot, and maximum two ADUs per duplex lot, in any combination of the following:
 Attached ADU,
 Conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),
 Detached ADU, or
 Junior ADU

3.  Setbacks  Per the underlying zoning district except that if the existing structures do not meet
these standards, the side and rear
setbacks shall be sufficient for fire safety
and life safety.
a. At least four feet from the rear
and side lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may
elect to follow the setback
437
CC 09-03-2025
437 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of space within principal
dwelling unit or accessory structures
New Construction Attached or
Detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit ≤ 800 s.f.
standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.

4.  Height  The conversion shall not change the
height of the existing structure.
a. 18 feet for detached ADU1
b. If accessory dwelling unit is
attached to principal dwelling, 25
feet or the height limitations
applicable to the principal
dwelling, whichever is lower.
c. An applicant alternatively may
elect to follow the height
standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.

5.  Second‐story
accessory
dwelling unit
Allowed if the unit is a conversion of
existing second story portion of the
principal dwelling unit.

Allowed

6.  Parking for
accessory
dwelling unit
None  None

7.  Direct outside
access
Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through the principal dwelling unit.

8.  Separation from
principal
dwelling unit
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. With the exception of a
JADU that has a shared bathroom with
the principal dwelling unit, no interior
doors or other connections between the
units are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
unit

1. An additional two feet in height (from 18 to 20 feet) for ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop or a high‐quality transit corridor is permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

Table 19.112.030B: Site Development Regulations for Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Associated with Existing Multi‐Family Residential Uses

438
CC 09-03-2025
438 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of interior space and
JADUs within multifamily
dwelling structures
Detached, and Attached New
Construction

1.  Location  a. Conversion of space within
existing dwelling structures that
is not used as livable space (e.g.
existing units) including, but not
limited to, storage rooms, boiler
rooms, passageways, attics,
basements, or garages, as long
as the unit meets building
standards for dwellings.
b. JADUs permitted only in
duplexes
Must be Ddetached from the multi‐
family dwelling structure(s) other
than for duplex zoned properties,
except attached ADUs are allowed
for duplex zoned properties.

2.  Maximum Number
of Units
The greater of:
 25 percent of the existing
number of primary
dwelling units, or
 One accessory dwelling unit
No more than two units
a. Multifamily
developments
other than
duplex zoned
properties
i. The greater of:
 25 percent of the existing
number of primary dwelling
units, or
 One accessory dwelling unit
ii. On a lot with an existing multi‐
family dwelling, the lesser of:
 Eight detached accessory
dwelling units and
 the number of existing multi‐
family units on the lot.
iii. On a lot with a proposed
multifamily dwelling, not more
than two detached ADUs.

b. Duplex zoned
properties
Up to a maximum of two accessory dwelling units in any combination of the following:
 Attached ADU,
 Conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),
 Detached ADU, or
 Junior ADU

3.  Minimum Size  150 s.f.

4.  Maximum Size  No size limitation  1,200 s.f. For duplex zoned properties, when multiple attached
439
CC 09-03-2025
439 of 551
Ordinance No.

Conversion of interior space and
JADUs within multifamily
dwelling structures
Detached, and Attached New
Construction
ADUs are proposed, size of each is
limited to 800 s.f.

5.  Setbacks  The accessory dwelling unit shall
not increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. Located at least four feet from the
side and rear lot lines.
b. An applicant alternately may elect
to follow the setback and height
standards for accessory structures
in Chapter 19.100.

6.  Height  The accessory dwelling unit shall
not increase the size of the existing
structure.
a. 18 feet1
b. An applicant alternatively may
elect to follow the setback and
height standards for accessory
structures in Chapter 19.100.

7.  Separation from
principal dwelling
units
The conversion must result in an
independent unit. No interior doors
or other connections between the
units are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
units.

1. An additional two feet in height (from 18 to 20 feet) for ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop or a high‐quality transit corridor is permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

19.112.040  Site Development Regulations for Non‐Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units.

A. This section shall govern applications for ADUs and JADUs that do not qualify for approval under Section 19.112.030 or Government Code section 65852.2(e)(1) 66323 and for which the city may impose local standards pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2 66314 ‐ 66322, subdivisions (a) through (d). Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit an ADU of up to 800 square feet, at the heights stated in Section 19.112.030(A) and 19.112.030(B), with a four‐foot side and rear setbacks.

B. The Development Standards for units governed by this section are provided in Section 19.112.040.  These regulations do not limit the height of ex isting structures converted into ADU/JADUs unless the envelope of the building is proposed to be modified beyond any existing legal, non‐conforming condition.

Table 19.112.040: Site Development Regulations for Non‐Streamlined Accessory Dwelling Units Created by New Construction and/or Additions to the Principal Dwelling Unit

440
CC 09-03-2025
440 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f.  Detached > 800 s.f.

A.  Number of Units  1. A  maximum  of  three  ADUs  per  single‐family  lot  in  any combination of  the  following,  subject  to  the  underlying  zoning standards for lot coverage, floor area, open space, and setback:
 No more than one attached ADU
 No more than one conversion of existing space ADU (whether in principal dwelling unit or existing accessory structure),  No more than one detached ADU, or
 No more than one Junior ADU

2. Nothing in this Section shall permit the development of more than three  ADUs  or  Junior  ADUs  on  any  single‐family  lot.  Non‐ streamlined  ADU  provisions  cannot  be  combined  with  streamlined provisions to add more than a total of three ADUs.

B.  Size of living space, exclusive of decks

1.  Minimum size  150 s.f.

2.  Maximum size  a. Studios/one‐bedroom unit – 850 s.f.; two or more‐bedroom unit – 1,000 s.f.; and
b. Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the existing primary dwelling
c. Application of lLot coverage, floor area, and open space standards per the underlying zoning apply to ADUs greater than 800 s.f. See Table 19.112.030 A for requirements related to ADUs less than or equal to 800 s.f.:
i. Maximum size for units ≤ 800 s.f. shall not be limited by lot coverage, floor area ratio, and open space requirements per the underlying zoning.
ii. Maximum size for units > 800 s.f. is limited by lot coverage, floor area ratio, and open space requirements per the underlying zoning. These standards shall apply to the gross floor area of the unit proposed. Notwithstanding application of these standards, an 800 s.f. detached accessory dwelling unit is permitted pursuant to Table 19.112.030A or an 800 s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit is permitted.

C.  Setbacks 1  Per the underlying zoning
district, except the required side
and rear setbacks are modified to
four feet.

The proposed structure must
comply with the setback standards
for accessory structures in Chapter

19.100, except the street side
setbacks are modified to four feet.
441
CC 09-03-2025
441 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f.  Detached > 800 s.f.

D.  Height  Per the underlying zoning
district, except 25 feet or the
height limitations applicable to
the principal dwelling,
whichever is lower, within half a
mile of a major transit stop or
transit corridor. 25 feet or the
height limitations applicable to
the principal dwelling,
whichever is lower.

The proposed structure must
comply with the height standards
for accessory structures in Chapter

19.100, except that a maximum
height of 18 feet is allowed within
half a mile of a major transit stop or
transit corridor.

E.  Second‐story accessory
dwelling units
Allowed within one half mile of a major transit stop or transit corridor.

F.   Parking

1.  Parking for
accessory dwelling unit
One additional off‐street parking space shall be provided, if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off‐street parking spaces for the applicable residential zoning district in which it is located, as required in Chapter 19.124, and none if unless the accessory dwelling unit meets one of the following requirements:
a. Located within one‐half (1/2) mile of a public transit stop; or b. Located within one block of a car share vehicle pick‐up location; or c. Located in an architecturally and historically significant historic district; or
d. The occupant of the unit is not allowed/offered a required on‐ street parking permit; or
e. Is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory stru
cture. or
f. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single‐family dwelling on the same lot provided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed above.

2.  Replacement
parking spaces for
Demolition or
conversion of existing
covered, uncovered or
enclosed parking spaces
converted to for an/g2
accessory dwelling unit
No replacement parking spaces are required.
442
CC 09-03-2025
442 of 551
Ordinance No.

Attached > 800 s.f.  Detached > 800 s.f.

G.  Direct outside access  Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through the principal dwelling unit.

H.  Screening from public
street
All access to accessory dwelling units shall be on a different wall plane than the access to the principal dwelling unit.

I.  Structure Design  a. Should Shall be compatible with the architectural style and match the exterior and roofing materials, window style, exterior lighting and exterior colors of the principal structure.
b. Shall meet the design standards when located within any one of the following zoning districts:
 Planned Development (P)
 Eichler (R1‐e)
 Monta Vista Design Guidelines
 Residential Hillside (RHS)
 Single Family Residential District with Semi‐Rural
Characteristics (R1‐a)
J.  Separation from
principal dwelling unit
The ADU must be an independent
unit. No interior doors or other
connections between the ADU
and the principal dwelling unit
are permitted.

Detached from principal dwelling
unit.

1. No setback is required for an accessory dwelling unit located within existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an accessory dwelling unit that replaces an existing structure and is located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced.

19.112.050 Review Process.

A. Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed ministerially without discretionary review and must be approved or denied within the time frame specified in Government Code Section 65852.266317.

B. Nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations or unpermitted structures:

1. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions (as defined in Government Code Section 66313) shall not be required as a condition of approval of a permit for the creation of an ADU or a JADU.

2. A permit for an ADU or a JADU will not be denied due to the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or other unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and that are not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU. 443
CC 09-03-2025
443 of 551
Ordinance No.

C. Unpermitted ADU or JADU: Any ADU created within the City shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and state law, and must obtain a building permit confirming compliance with all requirements, except that:

1. A permit to legalize an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020 may not be denied, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
a. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards, or b. The ADU or JADU does not comply with state ADU or JADU law (Government Code Section 66313‐66339) or this chapter.

2. Notwithstanding the above, a permit to legalize an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020 may be denied, if the City makes a finding that correcting violations of applicable building standards, state ADU/JADU law, and/or this municipal code, is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.

3. Notwithstanding subsection (C)(1) or (C)(2) above, a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 shall not be permitted.

19.112.060 Accessory Dwelling Units Prohibited on Certain Lots.

Notwithstanding Government Code Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 66313 ‐ 66339 or any provision of this Chapter, no accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any lot in single‐family residence district (R‐1 or RHS) if a lot split has been approved pursuant to Section 18.12.70 and one or more residential units has been approved for construction pursuan t  to Section 19.28.150 or 19.40.090 ( Government Code Section 65852.21).

19.112.070 Enforcement.

A. Violations of this Chapter shall be enforced as authorized by this Municipal Code and applicable provisions of state law.

B. Enforcement of Building Code standards: In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an ADU described below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an ADU for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code:

1. The ADU was built before January 1, 2020.

2. The ADU was built on or after January 1, 2020, and at the time the ADU was built, the City had a noncompliant ADU ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
444
CC 09-03-2025
444 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13864 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 17.

Subject: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, Section 11.24.130, Section 11.27.050, Section 11.28.010, and Section 11.28.020, pertaining to the overnight parking of oversized vehicles on public streets.

1. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 25-2275: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code Sections

11.24.130 (Prohibited for more than seventy-two hours), Section 11.27.050 (Issuance of permits to residents and members of designated groups), Section 11.28.010 (Definitions), and Section 11.28.020 (Parking of oversized vehicles restricted)”;

2. Request staff to report back to Council one year post implementation regarding impacts of new rules and possible suggested revisions;

3. Request staff to install oversized vehicle parking restriction signage in areas staff deems to be disproportionally impacted by oversized vehicle parking, including on Bandley Drive, Alves Drive and Saich Way, adjacent to the local Target store, and approve funding of $10,000 for such signage;

4. Request staff to update the City’s website to allow residents to obtain parking permits for their oversized vehicles online.

4. Approve an additional $25,000 for signage at City entrances. Staff will deploy the funds and install such signs once it determines that the new Ordinance is workable and effective; and

5. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
445
CC 09-03-2025
445 of 551

01276.0006 2032801.2 1

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025
Subject
Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, Section 11.24.130, Section 11.27.050, Section 11.28.010, and Section 11.28.020, pertaining to the overnight parking of oversized vehicles on public streets.

Recommended Action:

1. Conduct first reading of Ordinance 25-____: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code Sections 11.24.130 (Prohibited for more than seventy-two hours), Section 11.27.050 (Issuance of permits to residents and members of designated groups), Section 11.28.010 (Definitions), and Section

11.28.020 (Parking of oversized vehicles restricted)”;

2. Request staff to report back to Council one year post implementation regarding impacts of new rules and possible suggested revisions;

3. Request staff to install oversized vehicle parking restriction signage in areas staff deems to be disproportionally impacted by oversized vehicle parking, including on Bandley Drive, Alves Drive and Saich Way, adjacent to the local Target store, and approve funding of $10,000 for such signage;

4. Request staff to update the City’s website to allow residents to obtain parking permits for their oversized vehicles online.

4. Approve an additional $25,000 for signage at City entrances. Staff will deploy the funds and install such signs once it determines that the new Ordinance is workable and effective; and

5. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

Background:

On June 24, the Planning Commission considered various options for updating the City of Cupertino’s oversized vehicle parking restrictions to prohibit the 446
CC 09-03-2025
446 of 551

01276.0006 2032801.2
parking of oversized vehicles on public right-of-way streets for more than seventy-two hours. Such options were considered as the City has been experiencing an influx of these types of vehicles parking in excess of seventy-two hours on City streets, creating a public nuisance for City residents and interfering with the City’s commerce and local businesses.

On July 15, the City Council held a study session to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations. The Council also considered preventing the renting out of oversized vehicles to be used for living or sleeping quarters, as living and sleeping in any vehicle on a public street is prohibited under the City’s Municipal Code Section 11.28.020.

The proposed Ordinance would update the City’s Municipal Code pertaining to the parking of and/or renting of oversized vehicles within the City in support of the recommendations of the City Council outlined during the July 15 study session.

Reason for Recommendation and Available Options

1. The City’s code does not prevent the overnight parking of all oversized vehicles. The current code only prohibits the parking of mobile homes. Updating the municipal code will close the enforcement loopholes that currently exist by defining oversized vehicles and preventing them from parking on the City’s public streets overnight, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Although the code prohibits vehicles from parking in a location for more than seventy-two hours, as currently written it does not adequately prevent oversized vehicles from parking indefinitely in substantially the same area on public right-of-way streets, creating a public nuisance for City residents and visitors, and interfering with commerce and local business. This Ordinance provides a comprehensive definition for oversized vehicles and prohibits them from parking without a valid permit overnight, thereby balancing the needs of residents, visitors and local businesses.

2. City residents will remain largely unaffected by this Ordinance, as the City will offer each household up to twenty parking permits per year for their oversized vehicles, allowing residents or their guests to park oversized vehicles on public right-of-way streets for seventy-two hours. After seventy-two hours, the vehicle must be moved to a new location 1,500 feet from the first location and may not return to any location within 1,500 feet of the previous location for at least seventy-two hours. There is no charge imposed on residents for these permits.

447
CC 09-03-2025
447 of 551

01276.0006 2032801.2

3. The City’s current Municipal Code prohibits living or sleeping in vehicles on public streets or property. This Ordinance amends the code, expanding the intent of the original code to include the renting or loaning of any vehicle as a home or sleeping quarters.

Staff Recommendation:

Approve the recommended action.

Other Available Options:

1. Consider adopting a program that specifically targets only certain areas impacted by oversized and lived-in vehicles within the City. For example, the City of San Jose has adopted their Oversized and Lived-In Vehicle Enforcement (OLIVE) pilot program, which identifies impacted areas, establishes temporary tow away zones to allow clean up and encourage relocation, and analyzes the feasibility of installing permanent restrictions at select locations.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions and continue with the status quo.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
Permit Cost: Staff estimates that processing a permit application will cost approximately $46.50 based on staff time and the use of City resources. Staff anticipates receiving 3 to 4 permit applications per week. If volume increases, additional personnel may be needed. Staff will also incur approximately $10,000 in costs developing the electronic interface for the delivery of the seventy-two hour resident permits.

Sign Installation: Signage will cost approximately $513 per sign. Staff anticipates that 20 signs will be required to adequately cover the impacted areas on the streets near Target, for a total cost of approximately $10,000. If additional signs for this or other areas are needed, signage costs will increase.

Additionally, Staff plans to install signage at City entrances to notify anyone entering the City of the oversized vehicles parking restrictions. These signs at City entrances will enhance efficient enforcement. Approximately 50 signs will be required at an estimated cost of $25,000.

City Work Program Item
Yes, Item 12, Unhoused Policies.
448
CC 09-03-2025
448 of 551

01276.0006 2032801.2

City Work Program Item Description
Determine best practices for limited budget smaller cities to manage the unhoused. Review RV practices in surrounding cities for impacts and potential adoption. Review transitional housing outcomes in surrounding cities. Policies to include nimble contingency plans.

Council Goal
Quality of Life.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager

Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance (Redline)
B – Draft Ordinance (Clean)
449
CC 09-03-2025
449 of 551
ORDINANCE NO. 2025- _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TITLE 11, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.24.130 (PROHIBITED FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS), SECTION 11.27.050 (ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS OF DESIGNATED GROUPS), SECTION 11.28.010 (DEFINITIONS), AND SECTION 11.28.020 (PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES

RESTRICTED)

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code presently includes certain restrictions on parking vehicles on public streets for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours; and

2. WHEREAS, there is an influx of vehicles, specifically oversized vehicles, that park on public right of way streets in the City of Cupertino for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours; and

3. WHEREAS, the extended parking of oversized vehicles in the City of Cupertino obstructs local traffic, creating a public nuisance for residents, and interfering with local commerce and business; and

4. WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to amend the Cupertino Municipal Code to restrict the parking of oversized vehicles overnight on public and residential streets.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOW:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows, with new text added to existing provisions in underline (example) and deleted text in strikethrough (example):

“Sec. 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours.

A. No person who owns or has in his their possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. This prohibition shall apply to all vehicles parked or left standing within City limits unless explicitly exempt from this parking restriction by this section or another section of this code.

B. Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in violation of this seventy-two (72) hour parking limit may be issued a citation or removed from the street in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22651.”

“Section 11.27.050 Issuance of Permits to Residents and Members of Designated Groups. 450
CC 09-03-2025
450 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
A. Residents and members of designated groups parking permits shall be issued by the Director of Public Works. No more than one parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle for which application is made. The Director of Public Works is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this chapter, governing the manner in which residents shall qualify for parking permits.

B. Residents, as defined in Section 11.28.020, may apply for and receive up to twenty (20) parking permits per household, annually, to park their oversized vehicle, as defined in Section 11.28.010.

Residents can obtain these permits from the Cit y. Resident p arking permits will be valid for seventy-two (72) hours only, and must be displayed visibly on the dashboard of the authorized vehicle. Any permitted oversized vehicle must be moved a minimum of fifteen hundred (1500) feet after the expiration of the permit, and may not repark within fifteen hundred (1500) feet of the original space for the following seventy-two (72) hours, even with a new parking permit.” “Sec. 11.28.010 Definitions
A. “Camp car” means a vehicle with or without motive power which is designed for human habitation and which contains plumbing, heating or electrical equipment.

B. “Commercial vehicle” means any vehicle or part thereof required to be registered under the State of California Vehicle Code, which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit, or designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property, except passenger vehicles and house cars.

C. “Mobile home” means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or used as semipermanent housing, designed for human habitation, for carrying persons and property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach.

D. “Oversized vehicle” shall mean any camp trailer, camper, fifth wheel travel trailer, house car, mobile home, trailer coach, or recreational vehicle as defined in California Vehicle Code Sections 242, 243, 324, 362, 396, 635 and California Health and Safety Code Section 18010. Additionally, any motorized vehicle, or combination of motorized and/or non -motorized vehicle(s), as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 670, in excess of 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in width and 7 feet in height, will also be considered an “oversized vehicle” for purposes of this chapter.

E. “Park” means to stand or leave standing any vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actively engaged in the loading or unloading of passengers or materials.

F. “Public streets” means all streets, lanes, places, avenues and portions thereof, including extensions in length and width, which have been dedicated by the owners thereof to public use, acquired for public use, or in which a public easement exists.

G. “Truck trailer” means a commercial vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by a truck.

H. “Vehicle” means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a pickup or other vehicle), camp trailer, mobile home, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup, airplane, haul trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer, or parts thereof, or any device by 451
CC 09-03-2025
451 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a public street, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power.”
“Section 11.28.020 Vehicle Parking Regulations.

A. Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle, as defined in this chapter, shall be used for living or sleeping quarters on any public street right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county-, or city-owned property.

B. Rental of Vehicles for Living or Sleeping Quarters. No person shall rent, lease, let out, or otherwise loan any vehicle, as defined in this chapter, for use as sleeping or living quarters on any public right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county-, or city- owned property in exchange for money, goods, or services.

C. Mobile Homes. Mobile homes, excluding travel trailers, are not permitted to be parked on public streets within the residential zones of the City.

D. Unmounted Campers. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain, or permit to be placed, kept or maintained, any unmounted camper on any public street.

E. Oversized Vehicle Parking. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any oversized vehicle as defined in this chapter on any public right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county- or city-owned property between the hours of 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to oversized vehicles that have obtained a permit as provided in Chapter 11.27, or that are engaged in commercial activity within the City. Oversized vehicles parked overnight in violation of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12.

F. Loading and Unloading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to active loading or unloading of any vehicle, or to any public service or utility company vehicle while in the performance of service or maintenance work.

G. Construction Trailers. Trailers may be used for temporary offices on construction projects. A permit must be obtained from the City Building Department after satisfactory information has been given that the use is in compliance with the conditions of this chapter.” 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. To the extent the provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal 452
CC 09-03-2025
452 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act.

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

In this circumstance, the proposed action of prohibiting the parking of oversize vehicles in the same location for more than seventy-two (72) hours within City limits, would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because it is a procedural change that does not result in a physical change to the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

The Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5. Publication.

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

Pursuant to Government Code section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 3, 2025, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on ____________, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
453
CC 09-03-2025
453 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

______________________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

________________________
Date

454
CC 09-03-2025
454 of 551
ORDINANCE NO. 2025- _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TITLE 11, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.24.130 (PROHIBITED FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS), SECTION 11.27.050 (ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO RESIDENTS AND MEMBERS OF DESIGNATED GROUPS), SECTION 11.28.010 (DEFINITIONS), AND SECTION 11.28.020 (PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES

RESTRICTED)

The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code presently includes certain restrictions on parking vehicles on public streets for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours; and

2. WHEREAS, there is an influx of vehicles, specifically oversized vehicles, that park on public right of way streets in the City of Cupertino for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours; and

3. WHEREAS, the extended parking of oversized vehicles in the City of Cupertino obstructs local traffic, creating a public nuisance for residents, and interfering with local commerce and business; and

4. WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to amend the Cupertino Municipal Code to restrict the parking of oversized vehicles overnight on public and residential streets.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CU PERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOW:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours.

A. No person who owns or has in their possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon a ny public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. This prohibition shall apply to all vehicles parked or left standing wit hin City limits unless explicitly exempt from this parking restriction by this section or another section of this code.

B. Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in violation of this seventy-two (72) hour parking limit may be issued a citation or removed from the street in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22651.”

“Section 11.27.050 Issuance of Permits to Residents and Members of Designated Groups. 455
CC 09-03-2025
455 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
A. Residents and members of designated groups parking permits shall be issued by the Director of Public Works. No more than one parking permit shall be issued to each motor vehicle for which application is made. The Director of Public Works is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this chapter, governing the manner in which residents shall qualify for parking permits.

B. Residents, as defined in Section 11.28.020, may apply for and receive up to twenty (20) parking permits per household, annually, to park their oversized vehicle, as defined in Section 11.28.010.

Residents can obtain these permits from the Cit y. Resident p arking permits will be valid for seventy-two (72) hours only, and must be displayed visibly on the dashboard of the authorized vehicle. Any permitted oversized vehicle must be moved a minimum of fifteen hundred (1500) feet after the expiration of the permit, and may not repark within fifteen hundred (1500) feet of the original space for the following seventy-two (72) hours, even with a new parking permit.” “Sec. 11.28.010 Definitions
A. “Camp car” means a vehicle with or without motive power which is designed for human habitation and which contains plumbing, heating or electrical equipment.

B. “Commercial vehicle” means any vehicle or part thereof required to be registered under the State of California Vehicle Code, which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit, or designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property, except passenger vehicles and house cars.

C. “Mobile home” means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or used as semipermanent housing, designed for human habitation, for carrying persons and property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach.

D. “Oversized vehicle” shall mean any camp trailer, camper, fifth wheel travel trailer, house car, mobile home, trailer coach, or recreational vehicle as defined in California Vehicle Code Sections 242, 243, 324, 362, 396, 635 and California Health and Safety Code Section 18010. Additionally, any motorized vehicle, or combination of motorized and/or non -motorized vehicle(s), as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 670, in excess of 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in width and 7 feet in height, will also be considered an “oversized vehicle” for purposes of this chapter.

E. “Park” means to stand or leave standing any vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actively engaged in the loading or unloading of passengers or materials.

F. “Public streets” means all streets, lanes, places, avenues and portions thereof, including extensions in length and width, which have been dedicated by the owners thereof to public use, acquired for public use, or in which a public easement exists.

G. “Truck trailer” means a commercial vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by a truck.

H. “Vehicle” means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a pickup or other vehicle), camp trailer, mobile home, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup, 456
CC 09-03-2025
456 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
airplane, haul trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer, or parts thereof, or any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a public street, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power.”
“Section 11.28.020 Vehicle Parking Regulations.

A. Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle, as defined in this chapter, shall be used for living or sleeping quarters on any public right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county-, or city-owned property.

B. Rental of Vehicles for Living or Sleeping Quarters. No person shall rent, lease, let out, or otherwise loan any vehicle, as defined in this chapter, for use as sleeping or living quarters on any public right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county-, or city- owned property in exchange for money, goods, or services.

C. Mobile Homes. Mobile homes, excluding travel trailers, are not permitted to be parked on public streets within the residential zones of the City.

D. Unmounted Campers. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain, or permit to be placed, kept or maintained, any unmounted camper on any public street.

E. Oversized Vehicle Parking. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any oversized vehicle as defined in this chapter on any public right of way, street, highway, alley, parking lot, park or other state-, county- or city-owned property between the hours of 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to oversized vehicles that have obtained a permit as provided in Chapter 11.27, or that are engaged in commercial activity within the City. Oversized vehicles parked overnight in violation of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, and upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12.

F. Loading and Unloading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to active loading or unloading of any vehicle, or to any public service or utility company vehicle while in the performance of service or maintenance work.

G. Construction Trailers. Trailers may be used for temporary offices on construction projects. A permit must be obtained from the City Building Department after satisfactory information has been given that the use is in compliance with the conditions of this chapter.” 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 457
CC 09-03-2025
457 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act.

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

In this circumstance, the proposed action of prohibiting the parking of oversize vehicles in the same location for more than seventy-two (72) hours within City limits, would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because it is a procedural change that does not result in a physical change to the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

The Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5. Publication.

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

Pursuant to Government Code section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 3, 2025, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on ____________, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:
458
CC 09-03-2025
458 of 551
Ordinance No. __________

01276.0011 2025028.3 8/20/2025
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

______________________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

________________________
Date

459
CC 09-03-2025
459 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14152 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 18.

Subject: Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Continued from July 15, 2025)
Adopt Resolution No. 25-075 accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directing City staff to work through the multijurisdictional working group and Steering Committee to further assess the Study's recommendations and opportunities for implementation.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
460
CC 09-03-2025
460 of 551

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025

Subject
Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study

Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directing City staff to work through the multijurisdictional working group and Steering Committee to further assess the Study's recommendations and opportunities for implementation.

Discussion
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Attachment A) is a multi-agency planning study between the Cities of Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). This Study outlines a vision for the future of the nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor, emphasizing the need for coordinated planning and transportation improvements across the participating jurisdictions. The Study builds on prior local planning efforts and incorporates extensive community input to develop recommendations for future infrastructure and policy changes that reflect community priorities.

In 2019, the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara each adopted resolutions expressing support for initiating a project to study the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor. This action formalized a multijurisdictional commitment to create a vision for multimodal transportation along the Corridor. All 2019 agency resolutions are included in this report as Attachment B.

Cupertino’s resolution, adopted by the City Council on July 16, 2019, affirmed the City’s support for a transit efficiency and streetscape improvement study. This resolution emphasized Cupertino's commitment to safe, multimodal transportation while ensuring that transit solutions align with community and regional goals without reducing vehicular capacity. The resolution explicitly laid out Cupertino’s interests as follows:

461
CC 09-03-2025
461 of 551

1) Support efforts to study improving transit efficiency and streetscape improvements along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, and 2) Support continuing ongoing conversations regarding high-capacity transit service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard/ I-280 corridor, with the understanding that it would:
a) Not use general purpose travel lanes or adversely impact vehicular capacity on City surface streets; and
b) Be grade-separated and time-competitive with auto travel; and c) Study an alternate alignment in Cupertino along I-280, continuing to DeAnza College at the junction of SR85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, ensuring service to areas of high employment density and De Anza College while connecting the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; and
3) Authorizes the City Manager or designee to assess resources needed to develop these projects and report findings to the City Council.

In June 2022, the City Council approved $154,079 in funding to participate in the project.

The City of San Jose procured transportation consultant services (Iteris Inc. and Winter Consulting) for the Study and entered into funding reimbursement agreements with all participating jurisdictions. In early 2023, the Vision Study consulting team began early engagement with the various community groups and stakeholders along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study presents a set of community- identified programs and projects to enhance transportation options along the Corridor.

The Study outlines a long-term community vision for the Corridor that balances the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists, ensuring safety, comfort, and accessibility for all.

The Study was led by a Steering Committee of elected officials from the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, as well as Santa Clara County, and VTA. This committee ensured high-level policy alignment and oversight throughout the project.

The Steering Committee established a twelve-member Community Advisory Group (CAG) comprising local residents, businesses, and advocacy groups to provide diverse perspectives and critical feedback. CAG participants were suggested by city staff, as directed by the Steering Committee. Prior to the start of the project, a list of stakeholder groups was identified for general project outreach. Those who responded were invited to participate in the CAG. Committee members could also refer individuals they believed would be valuable participants. These referrals were directed to the project team for follow-up. Final decisions regarding CAG membership were made by the Committee Chair. A formal Committee vote was not taken. The CAG met four times in a public open house format to help refine key community priorities.

462
CC 09-03-2025
462 of 551

Public engagement involved surveys, webinars, pop-up events, and other community outreach methods. Winter Consultants was hired to lead the outreach process, and project partner agencies worked collaboratively with Winter to develop an outreach strategy tailored to their respective communities' unique needs.

The Vision Study provides improvement project recommendations, categorized into near-, medium-, and long-term recommendations:

1. Near-Term Recommendations (within 5 years):
• Establish corridor identity and maintenance programs. • Implement transit speed and reliability policy improvements. • Upgrade bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

2. Medium-Term Recommendations (5-10 years):
• Improve intersections and crossings for safer pedestrian and bicyclist movements.
• Enhance connectivity between neighborhoods and transit stops through walking and biking network gap closures.

3. Long-Term Recommendations (20+ years):
• Pursue grant funding to study a high-capacity, separated transit system connecting Cupertino to San Jose's Diridon Station, offering a 20-minute travel time.

This is not a prescriptive plan for immediate implementation but rather a collaborative, phased understanding to address community priorities and agency goals. The recommendations focus on near-, medium-, and long-term improvement recommendations that align with community input and policy objectives, with project delivery dependent on interagency coordination and resource availability. If jurisdictions decide to move forward with specific policies or projects, then additional local approval and funding would be required to advance those improvements.

On April 16, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission reviewed the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and passed a motion recommending that the City Council accept the Study with specific qualifications:

 The City maintains final decision-making authority regarding any projects or recommendations contained within the Vision Study.
 The BPC reaffirms the City’s commitment to the provisions contained within Resolution 19-089.
 All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection modifications, will conform to the City’s standard processes, plans, and procedures relating to public outreach and approval.

463
CC 09-03-2025
463 of 551

On May 13, 2025, the Cupertino Planning Commission reaffirmed the BPC motion and voted unanimously to recommend that the Cupertino City Council accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, with the following additional qualifications:

 Prioritize investments in identity and maintenance.
 Prioritize investments in safety, with a focus on, but not limited to, technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection.  Prioritize cost by limiting the corridor up to Bubb Road and limiting the study of transit alternatives to grade-separated transit.
 Invest in off-corridor bicycle and pedestrian networks such as, but not limited to, the Lawrence Mitty Trail and Tamien Innu.

The acceptance of the Vision Study has been considered by all project partner agency Boards and Councils except Cupertino. The actions taken by these bodies are as follows:

 City of Santa Clara: The City Council adopted a resolution accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study on May 27, 2025.
 City of San Jose: The City Council adopted a resolution accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study on March 24, 2025.
 County of Santa Clara: The Board of Supervisors approved the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study on June 17, 2025.
 Valley Transportation Authority: The Board of Directors approved the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study on May 1, 2025.

Next steps for the project are still being discussed among the participating agencies but are likely to include keeping the Steering Committee and the working group in their current forms to continue conversations about the corridor’s future. Accepting the study signals Cupertino’s support of ongoing coordination efforts, but it is important to note that if the City accepts the Study, it does not constitute the City’s approval of any or all recommendations listed in the Study, and the pursuit of each recommendation would be at the discretion of each participating jurisdiction.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The project is not subject to CEQA.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact from accepting the Study.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
464
CC 09-03-2025
464 of 551

Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A – Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
B – Resolution 19-089
C – Draft Resolution
D – Mayor Chao – Recommendation Resolution
E – Vice Mayor Moore – Recommendation Resolution

465
CC 09-03-2025
465 of 551

Prepared by Iteris, Inc. and Winter Consulting
December 2024
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor

VISION STUDY

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS

May 7, 2024

V I S I O N
Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor
466
CC 09-03-2025
466 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | i

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Corridor Steering Committee
Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei, City of San José (Chair)
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County (Vice Chair) Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Councilmember Hung Wei, City of Cupertino
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Board Member Margaret Abe-Koga, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board

Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Working Group John Sighamony, VTA
Tamiko Percell, VTA
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
Matt Shroeder, City of Cupertino
Chris Corrao, City of Cupertino
Ramses Madou, City of San José
David Gomez, City of San José
Jamie Sidhu, City of San José
Aaron Zeelig, City of San José
Natasha Opfell, City of San José
Wilson Tam, City of San José
Raania Mohsen, City of San José
Alex Dersh, City of San José, District 1
Michael Liw, City of Santa Clara
Nicole He, City of Santa Clara
Lesley Xavier, City of Santa Clara
Steve Chan, City of Santa Clara
Reena Brilliot, City of Santa Clara
Ben Aghegnehu, County of Santa Clara
The Study was initiated through the hard work of the previous Stevens Creek Corridor Boulevard Steering Committee which included
Vice Mayor Chappie Jones, City of San José (previous Chair) Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Council Member Elect, Rosemary Kamei, City of San José
Mayor Darcy Paul, City of Cupertino
Council Member Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Anthony Becker, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Teresa O’Neill, City of Santa Clara
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County

Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Community Advisory Group
Ofisa Pati, Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI) Maria Ines Ortega, Cadillac Winchester Neighborhood Association Bob Levy, City of San José District Neighborhood Leadership Group Sheng-Ming Egan, Cupertino 4 All
Seema Lindskog, Walk Bike Cupertino
Shyam “Sean” Panchal, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Pam Grey, De Anza College Administration
Manny DaSilva, DeAnza College
Harry Neil, De Anza College Student
Perry Penvenne, Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Tracie Johnson, South of Forest Avenue Neighborhood Association Cindy Baldenazi, South of Forest Neighborhood Association Jennifer Shearin, Walk Bike Cupertino
Kirk Vartan, Local Business Owner on Corridor
Chris Giangreco, Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association

We want to send a special thank you for all who participated in the project through online, webinars, surveys, interviews and pop-up events.

467
CC 09-03-2025
467 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Corridor Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Vision Statement ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Values and Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Implementation Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Engagement .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and Experience ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3. Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 12

4. Walking and Biking Network Connections ............................................................................................................................................ 15

5. Crossings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

7. Implementation Action Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 23

Tables

Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles) ................................................................................................................................ . 15 Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions ....................................................................................................... 24 Table 5: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions ................................................................................................ . 26 Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor ............................................................................................................................. 27 Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions .................................................................................................. 28 Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................ 29 Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions ................................................................................................ 30 Ta
ble 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High- Capacity Transit Systems ................................................................................................ 31

468
CC 09-03-2025
468 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | iii
Figures

Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High- Capacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor ......................................................................... 2 Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 13: Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation ................................................................................ 13 Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row ............................................................................................................. 18 Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor ............................................................................................ 19 Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High- Capacity Transit System, West of I-280 .................................................. 21 Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High- Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard ......................... 22

Appendices
A. Engagement Summary and Tracker
B. Transit Alternatives Analysis
C. Transit Signal Operations
D. Planned Conditions
E. Parking Survey
F. Conditions Report

469
CC 09-03-2025
469 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 1

CORRIDOR VISION

The nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street corridor (Corridor) from Foothill Boulevard to Diridon Station is vital to Santa Clara Valley. The Corridor currently serves 100,000 residents and 80,000 jobs within ½ mile of the roadway. By 2040, these populations are expected to increase to 120,000 residents and 100,000 jobs.

• One-third of corridor residents are under 18 years old, forecast to rise to over 40 percent by 2040
• Almost 20 percent of corridor residents have an annual household income under $50,000.
• 65 percent of households speak languages other than English and over 30 percent have low English proficiency.
• 7.5 percent have a disability
• 5.5 percent live in households without an automobile

The Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)—the local government agencies responsible for transportation in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor—are committed to continuous investment for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers. We recognize that to unlock the corridor's full potential, it is essential to have a shared vision for long-term transportation goals.

Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area

470
CC 09-03-2025
470 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 2
Recognizing the need for a unified approach, the Cities, County, and VTA partnered to develop this Vision Statement. This Vision will guide the future of the corridor, ensuring cohesive planning and the coordinated management of transportation improvements.

A Steering Committee of elected officials from the participating agencies, a community advisory group, residents, businesses, and community groups provided the necessary leadership in a cooperative planning process to create a strong and sustainable Vision to guide corridor transportation investments for the next 50 years.

Vision Statement

The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode.

Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:

• A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa
Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with
connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations. Station areas would be well- maintained and inviting community assets.

• A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling
environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within ½ mile or 20-minute walk of transit stops.

• Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and
expressways and freeways.

This Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use.

Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High- Capacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor
Values and Guiding Principles

The Corridor Vision would be implemented in steps. The committed shared purpose, vision, and values of the Cities of Cupertino, San José, and Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will guide the Vision implementation process:

Ongoing Collaboration
• Continually engage and collaborate with corridor users and decision-makers.
471
CC 09-03-2025
471 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 3
• Incrementally improve access, comfort, speed, and
reliability of transit.
• Embrace technological innovations.

Safety of All Corridor Users
• Eliminate transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries.
• Allow safe passage for vulnerable road users along and crossing the corridor.
• Reduce the level of stress and increase the accessibility of walking and biking,

Create a Sustainable Environment to Prioritize People
• Design for all ages, abilities, and incomes of users. • Maintain the corridor as a clean and inviting place.
• Provide green space and shade, and support native wildlife and plants.
• Foster enjoyable public space.
• Support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation.

A Transit Corridor
• Increase transit frequency and speed.
• Favor transit travel time over auto travel time in roadway operations.
• Improve access and comfort of waiting for transit.
• Implement a high-capacity, separated transit service in the corridor.

Convenience and Connectivity
• Improve the convenience of travel for people.
• Ensure access and connectivity for all travelers through investment to meet resident and business needs.
• Enhance neighborhood and business access.

Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West

472
CC 09-03-2025
472 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 4

IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS

The Vision Implementation Plan serves as a framework for actions to achieve a shared Vision for the Corridor. Implementation will occur incrementally on separate project development timelines, involving distinct processes and leadership. Some items will be addressed through routine maintenance or administrative actions at the agency level, while others necessitate months or years of design and development, requiring newly identified funding sources and multijurisdictional cooperation.

Regardless of the specific implementation approach, each component of the Corridor Vision contributes to the overarching goal of safe and enjoyable travel for people of all ages, abilities, and chosen modes. The implementation planning process aligns with the Vision Statement, assessing various options.

Strategies and improvements are drawn from the VTA Community Design and Transportation Manual, refined to match local City and County specifications and standards, ensuring alignment with the area’s unique character.

Engagement

The Vision Statement for the Corridor was developed through extensive community input. Key community needs identified included addressing excessive vehicle speeds, improving safety, enhancing walkability, and achieving a better balance of transportation modes. To realize this vision, the community prioritized improved transit service, complete streets, better integration with the local community, and enhanced connections within the Corridor. Implementation efforts focus on key priorities such as upgraded bicycle lanes, improved streetscape design (including shade trees), transit infrastructure and service investments, and safer pedestrian crossings.

473
CC 09-03-2025
473 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 5

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use.

The Vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor will be implemented cooperatively among Corridor jurisdictions, transportation agencies, and the Corridor residential and business communities.

Investment in improving the multimodal transportation conditions in the Corridor should not wait for separated high-capacity transit, near-term actions can start to improve conditions for today’s users while creating an environment that better leverages future long-term investments. The six (6) recommended implementation components provide a structure to deliver near-term and long-term benefits of the Corridor Vision are:

Near Term (actions with about a 5-year development period) – These actions can be implemented in short timeframes with near- term benefits.

1. Implement corridor identity and maintenance program(s) to support Corridor businesses and neighborhoods.

2. Improve bus transit speed, reliability, and experience.

3. Implement walking and bicycling infrastructure on the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor with an emphasis on physically protected bicycle lanes while maintaining access to driveways.

4. Build out and enhance pedestrian and bicycle network parallel, across and connecting to the Corridor.

The near-term actions would also include the initiation of project development and funding for the high-capacity, separated transit service.

Near to Medium Term (actions with about a 10-year development period) – These actions require more development time due to their complexity and cost. Actions within the next five years will initiate priority projects.

5. Improve intersections and crossings to minimize
inconvenience and maximize safety for all users.

Long Term (actions with at least a 20-year development period) – The Vision of a separated, high-capacity transit service in the Corridor will require considerable time, effort and funding from each Corridor agency. The next step in the project development process is to secure funding for preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA).

6. Separate transit from other vehicle operations for high- capacity transit service.

While individual projects would have their own development process with rigorous public engagement, the Corridor agencies should continue their cooperation at the staff and elected official level to bring the Corridor Vision to reality as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision

474
CC 09-03-2025
474 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 6

1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance

The Corridor businesses, neighborhoods, civic groups and government agencies will define a Corridor brand identity(ies) as a premier regional destination to live, work, and shop. These groups will also collaborate to maintain the historic resources, condition of infrastructure and cleanliness of the Corridor.

Transportation infrastructure that complements the community supports environmental, economic, and social considerations to create value to the people who live, work, and shop in the Corridor.

Maintenance of an attractive and clean environment to leverage the unique corridor identity for the enjoyment of residents, workers, and shoppers requires organization and resources.

Corridor Plans
The City of Cupertino Heart of the City and Monta Vista Specific Plans, City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus area and City of San José Stevens Creek, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and West San Carlos Urban Villages each envision as streetscape that accommodates more walking, biking, rolling and transit activity. The plans will be implemented through a variety of physical infrastructure and placemaking development actions consistent with the character of a multimodal commercial street. VTA’s Community Design and Transportation Manual further details the relationship of transportation and public life that inform the recommendations of the Corridor Vision Implementation.

Historic Preservation of Signs
The Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor is home to several vintage and historic signs—predominately in the googie, mid-century style. Current historic signs in the Corridor such as the Safeway (former Futurerama Bowl) Sign, Western Appliance Sign, and the Y Not Sign continue to define a future- looking aesthetic.

Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor

Transportation Service Signage
The identity of the transportation services and connections of the Corridor have limited visibility.

Transit identity can take a larger
role in the Corridor’s identity
through wayfinding signage,
real-time transit information,
and better identified transit
stops which allow for better
awareness and utilization of the
Corridor transportation assets.

Wayfinding signage can be used
to direct travelers from the
Corridor to routes which
provide connections across
barriers such as the Cypress
Avenue Bridge over I-280.

Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian

475
CC 09-03-2025
475 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 7
District Management and Maintenance Organizations
Management of public space is usually conducted by municipalities or adjacent landowners, however in some parts of the Corridor, business districts and chambers of commerce were formed to provide business development, clean and maintain public space, provide beautification, create a civic forum, and sponsor events and promotions. These organizations include:
• West San Carlos Street Neighborhood Business District Association
• Winchester Neighborhood Business District
• Cupertino Chamber of Commerce

Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs

Vehicle Speed Limit
The Corridor speed limit is 35 miles per hour in most locations except for the segment between Lawrence Expressway and
Harold Avenue which has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. It is recommended this segment’s speed limit be reduced to 35 miles per hour for consistency and more appropriate
conditions for bicyclists.

Vehicle Speed Reduction Enforcement and Education
Enforcement of speed limits and traffic safety
education can improve safety and comfort for
residents, workers and visitors to the Corridor. The
physical character of the roadway gives the
impression of a higher-than-posted speed limit of 35
miles per hour (40 miles per hour from Lawrence
Expressway to Harold Avenue). In advance of implementing infrastructure to actively or passively reduce vehicle speeds, enforcement can be an effective near-term action to address vehicle speed in the Corridor. Speeding is the largest primary traffic collision factor in the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor (30% of
collisions), followed by
related driver factors of
failure to heed traffic signals
or signs (19%), improper
turning (19%), and violations
of vehicle right-of-way (12%).

Deployment of periodic
speed enforcement and
vision zero education
campaigns complement
physical infrastructure
countermeasures to reduce
vehicle speeds.

Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on
Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José

On-Street Parking
On-street parking can be an important component of a vibrant commercial corridor. A significant portion of the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street has on-street parking in the Cities of San José and Santa Clara sections of the roadway. A parking utilization survey in May 2024 analyzed the use of 1,736 parking spaces: 885 directly on Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street, and 851 spaces within 200 feet of the Corridor on adjacent streets. Parking utilization ranged from 30 percent of spaces to 70 percent of spaces depending on location and time of day. As shown in Table 1, the highest utilized section on the Corridor was between Lincoln Avenue and Shasta Avenue and the highest utilized side streets were in the Saratoga Avenue to Richfield Drive section of the corridor.

Source: San José Business Improvement District, Discover Santa Clara, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
476
CC 09-03-2025
476 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 8
Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization

Overall, on-street parking is well utilized throughout the Corridor, especially in areas where businesses are on small lots with limited off-street parking. Preservation of adequate parking is a key consideration for the overall design of the corridor roadway right-of- way, however curbside management which includes consideration of parking turnover, passenger vehicle and transit loading access, commercial loading, bicycle and pedestrian safety as factors should be continued practice to maximize access, mobility, and safety. Any proposed removal of on-street parking in the future should be studied further in coordination with the adjacent land
uses/properties.

During the course of the study, the use of the median for car hauler loading and unloading was mentioned as part of the balance of use in the public right-of-way since alteration of this condition would push the activity to neighborhood side streets.

Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies

• Convene businesses and business groups to explore:
o Joint advertising and branding opportunities.
o Marketing and special events
o Public safety and hospitality
o Small business grants/loans

• Communicate business resources to Corridor businesses

• Coordinate street cleaning and maintenance including
graffiti removal and sidewalk and vegetation maintenance

• Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue

• Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and speed education efforts

• Develop a process for ongoing community input and
engagement for corridor issues through the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee

477
CC 09-03-2025
477 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 9

2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and
Experience

The Corridor Cities and the County will work with VTA to implement bus speed, reliability and experience improvements in the Corridor.

Buses provide the primary transit mode along the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor—the lines serving the corridor are on VTA’s Frequent Network. The improvement of service speed, reliability, and experience is the responsibility of VTA and the Cities and County that own and operate the infrastructure utilized by the bus system.

Since buses in the corridor share the roadway infrastructure with other vehicles, designing and operating the roadway with transit vehicles and riders at the forefront can bring better service, encourage more transit riders, and support affordable and environmentally friendly transportation.

Buses primarily operate in the outside (3rd) lanes of the Corridor with a frequency of about every 10 minutes between the 23 and 523 service. More than 80 percent of the bus stops are locations where the bus stops in the 3
rd lane or in a bicycle lane area which blocks
the 3rd lane vehicles behind it during stops. The speed limit of 35mph on Stevens Creek can have safety implications for mixed lane operations: in 2020 a motorist fatally rear-ended a VTA bus which was slowing down for a bus stop.

The City of San José General Plan designated the Corridor a Grand Boulevard where the needs of transit vehicles and riders are given priority over other modes of travel. In 2022, the City of San José passed a “Transit First Policy” which further motivates San José to improve transit operations and access on Grand Boulevards.

There are 89 intersections and 74 bus stops (both directions) along the Corridor. The Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, as well as San José, partnered with VTA to implement new shelters, seating, lighting, and associated improvements at VTA Rapid 523 bus stops in 2018. The Rapid 523 service operates approximately 22 percent faster than the Local Route 23 service due to stop consolidation, all- door boarding, and limited signal priority operations. In addition, through VTA’s Bus Stop Balancing program six eastbound and four westbound low ridership or redundant stops were removed.

Other transportation services operating in the corridor include the public Silicon Valley Hopper on-demand shared service in Cupertino and Santa Clara, private employee buses for large employers, and private transportation network companies. Efficiency through the intersections and access to and quality of the bus stops are the focus of the following bus speed, reliability, and user experience improvements.

Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard

Transit Signal Priority
Traffic signals that adjust signal green time based on transit vehicle proximity currently have limited implementation in the Corridor, despite corridor-wide infrastructure and technology in place. An administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor- wide transit signal priority through a centralized system would be expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 14% and VTA Local 478
CC 09-03-2025
478 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 10
23/51 service by 12%, saving 5.5 minutes and 5.9 minutes for end to end trips respectively.

Queue Jump
A designated waiting areas for buses at the front of an intersection along with leading bus-only green time is referred to as a queue jump. This treatment would be effective at the San Tomas Expressway intersection because the intersection is synchronized north/south to the expressway and therefore could not be a part of the east/west Corridor transit signal priority. This queue jump treatment would be expected to save up to 12 seconds per bus trip through the intersection running east/west or a 0.5% travel time savings for Corridor end-to-end trips.

Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency

Bus Boarding Islands
Bus boarding islands allow in-lane boarding and remove bus stops from bicycle lanes while providing additional safety protection for cyclists. Implementation of bus boarding islands reduces the amount time of buses spend at a stop and would move bus loading out of bicycle lanes along the Corridor. Full implementation in the Corridor is expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 2.1% and VTA Local 23/51 service by 6.1%, saving 50 seconds and 3.1 minutes for end-to-end trips respectively. The higher travel time savings for local service is due to the higher number of stops in the Corridor.

Real-Time Information
VTA provides real-time arrival and service alert information through a mobile app called Transit and at stop digital signage at light rail and bus rapid transit stations. Provision of this information on digital signs at stops in the Corridor would be a major improvement to rider comfort and understanding of vehicle arrival time.

Transit Experience Improvements
VTA and the Corridor municipalities recently made investments in transit user experience in the corridor through improved shelters, lighting, seating, accessibility, and bicycle racks on buses. Corridor municipalities continue to address fixing cracked sidewalks, tripping hazards, and adding concrete bus pads where asphalt has been impacted by frequent stopping. There will need to be periodic, ongoing capital maintenance activities to maintain the stop areas in a state of good repair.

Curbside Transit/Business Access Lanes
Transit lanes use pavement markings to prioritize buses for improvement to transit speed and reliability. Curbside bus lanes are accessible to emergency vehicles and any other vehicle for right- turns at intersections, driveways, parking maneuvers. Curbside transit lanes can also enhance the visibility and branding of transit service, and provide better visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the roadway from driveways and neighborhood side streets and can also be signed as Business Access and Transit Lanes. Given the width of the roadway and predominately three-lane in each direction configuration, curbside transit lanes could be implemented with limited change to current on-street parking.

Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies

• Complete an administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the County of San José) to 479
CC 09-03-2025
479 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 11
cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-wide transit signal priority through a centralized system.

• Design and Transportation Manual (CDT) and VTA’s Speed and Reliability Program. VTA will develop a speed and
reliability improvement plan for the frequent network routes of 23, 51, and 523 with a Working Group of Corridor Agencies where priorities, funding and phased implementation.
480
CC 09-03-2025
480 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 12

3. Corridor Walking and Biking
Infrastructure

Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a stress- free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment through the implementation of protected, buffered, or separated bicycle facilities the length of the Corridor including protection at intersections. Where sidewalks are not to current standard, they will be improved through dedications of new development.

Balancing modes in the Corridor requires additional promotion of infrastructure for walking and biking. Investment in walking and bicycling infrastructure supports transit riders by providing easier and more pleasant stop access.

The streetscape of Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street has remained largely unchanged in the last 50 years, even as the communities it serves have grown and diversified. Key improvements to modernize and transform the roadway into a valuable community asset include upgrading bicycle facilities, ensuring sidewalks meet current width standards, and installing and maintaining shade trees.

Protection for Bicyclists
According to the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), protected bicycle lanes should be installed when vehicles travel at speeds of more than 25 miles per hour on a consistent basis. Given the speed limit is predominately 35 miles per hour or higher in the Corridor, the physical separation of bicycle lanes is prudent for safety and comfort. The City of Cupertino is currently implementing physically separated bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Cities of Santa Clara and San José plan to implement bicycle separation along the Corridor.

Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options

Physical bicycle lane separation would include clear space and clear sight lines for vehicles accessing driveways. It may also include additional safety treatment for vehicle egress/ingress at driveways.

Buildout Sidewalk Width
While sidewalks are present the entire length of the Corridor, 85 percent of the sidewalks are narrower than the standards within their respective City. Generally, the sidewalks in the Valley Fair/Santana Row area and parts of Cupertino are the widest in the Corridor. The Corridor has several legacy driveways which slope through the sidewalk area. Each of the Corridor Cities’ current standards separate the sidewalk area from the driveway apron to provide for minimal sloping though the pedestrian walking space which should be implemented as adjacent buildings are developed.

Pedestrian Infrastructure Enhancements
Whether someone is walking to a restaurant, business, or residence from a parked car or bike, from an adjacent neighborhood, or from a transit stop, high-quality pedestrian infrastructure is important.

Sidewalk extensions can be used to shorten intersection crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility. Median refuge islands Source: San José Better Bike Plan, City of San José
481
CC 09-03-2025
481 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 13
are a treatment at physically large, busy signalized intersections with long crosswalks. These facilities can provide a safe midpoint for two-stage intersection crossings. Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections allow pedestrians to cross at intersections before vehicles are given a green signal and gives pedestrians priority over turning-vehicles. While conventional street lights are intended to illuminate the roadway for vehicles, pedestrian-oriented lighting illuminates sidewalks and crosswalks to enhance the comfort and safety of walking at night.

Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor

Shade Trees
Shade trees are sparse in the Corridor. Only 45 percent of blocks have any trees present, and only 23 percent of blocks have trees on both sides of the roadway. Maintenance of a healthy urban forest and green infrastructure lowers the temperature at ground level, reduces glare, reduces stormwater run-off, and provides for native wildlife.

Right-of-Way Constraints
The corridor right-of-way varies block-to-block; however, the Corridor can be characterized by seven generalized segments by the types of transportation infrastructure in place:

A. Cupertino two to four lanes
B. Cupertino six lanes
C. San José/Santa Clara six lanes
D. Valley Fair/Santana Row six lanes
E. West San Carlos Street four lane no current bicycle lane F. West San Carlos Street four lane with bicycle lane

When applying sidewalk, bicycle lane, and vehicle lane standards to the existing right-of-way, areas with constrained right of way are indicated in several sections of the corridor as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation 482
CC 09-03-2025
482 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 14
While these constraints do not limit the feasibility of implementing improvements in the current corridor right-of-way, they do indicate some deviation from standard design may be necessary to meet mobility goals without impacting adjacent land use.

Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Recommended
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies

• Physically protect/separate/buffer bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street to provide
separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining access to driveways.

• Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards
through dedications by new land use development.

• Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek
Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor. This would be developed within an urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance.

• Review locations for installation of median refuge islands

• Review the potential for leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections (LPIs).

• Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting when street lighting is installed or replaced in the corridor.

483
CC 09-03-2025
483 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 15

4. Walking and Biking Network Connections

Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by high- quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk of transit stops through the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian plans.

The Vision of the Corridor as a multimodal roadway is to be supported by strong connections to walking and bicycling networks.

This allows non-motorized travel for access to transit services and commercial and residential areas.

Each Corridor agency provide improvements to walking and bicycling infrastructure in the Corridor area (within ½ mile of the Corridor). The current and planned status of bicycle infrastructure based on each of the Corridor City’s bicycle plans is shown in Table

2. Overall, the bicycle network is planned to be expanded by 50 percent –from approximately 80 miles of facilities to 120 miles of facilities. This expansion includes a major investment in 68 miles of new or converted trails and protected, buffered, or separated bikeways. This would bring the proportion of the separated bikeway network from 11 percent to 63 percent in the Corridor area.

Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles)

Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Each Corridor agency has plans to design, fund, and construct projects to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These are also supplemented by safety planning such as Local Roadway Safety Plans, Safety Action Plans, Safe Routes to School, Vision Zero Programs, and the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines.

Implementation of active transportation improvements should consider the accommodation of electric powered bicycle, scooters, and other micromobility to ensure emerging modes support, not conflict with walking and bicycling.

Priority Implementation Actions
The following is a sample of the 70+ parallel and connecting walking and biking network improvements prioritized by the Community Advisory Committee:
• Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Project (City of Santa Clara)
• Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (City of San José) • De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes (City of Cupertino)
• Lawrence Mitty Park Trail (City of Cupertino)

Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area

Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area

Bicycle Facility Type Current Planned
Trail 4.5 12.6
Buffered/Separated Bikeway 4.6 64.5
Unbuffered Bike Lane 52.6 14.3
Bicycle Boulevard/Route 18.9 30.2
Subtotal – Protected Network 9.0 77.0
Total 80.5 121.5
484
CC 09-03-2025
484 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 16

5. Crossings

Crossings in the Corridor Area will be upgraded for accessible, consistent infrastructure that protects vulnerable users, considers transit access, and ensures direct connections. Safe and efficient vehicle travel would also be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways and freeways.

Crossings of the Corridor whether at intersections, at midblock locations or across natural barriers, are important to maintain connectivity among neighborhoods, parks, commercial areas and access to corridor transit services.

From 2016 to 2022 there was an average of 188 collisions per year in the Corridor overall and 23 collisions per year involving bicycles or pedestrians—75 percent of which occurred within 250 feet of an intersection. Half of vehicle/vehicle collisions resulted in injuries, while 93 percent of collisions involving bicycles and 97 percent of collisions involving pedestrians resulted in an injury. Collisions involving a bicycle or a pedestrian were also five times as likely to result in a serious injury or fatality. Therefore, special attention to the treatment of vulnerable road users at these crossings should be made to ensure conflicting movements do not become collisions.

The Corridor Cities and the County are conducting Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs), Safety Action Plans and Vision Zero Plans with specific actions to address intersection and systemic safety. For example, three Corridor intersections for recommended
improvements identified in the City of Cupertino’s LRSP: Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue.

Enhanced Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles
Marked and highly visible crosswalks help define where pedestrians can conveniently and predictably cross streets. While the California Vehicle Code requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in any crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked.

Streetscape design should prioritize crosswalks as an essential element of the pedestrian environment, rather than interruptions to vehicles. Due to the low approach angle at which drivers view pavement markings, incorporating parallel stripes alongside or instead of standard perpendicular markings can greatly enhance the visibility of crosswalks for oncoming traffic. Therefore, to improve crosswalk visibility ‘standard’ crosswalks delineated by two lines perpendicular to the vehicle lanes should be replaced with ‘continental’ crosswalks with lines parallel to the roadway or ‘ladder’ crosswalks with both the standard perpendicular delineation lines and the parallel continental lines or ‘zebra’ crosswalks with diagonal lines.

Currently 79 percent of crosswalks across Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street are high-visibility continental or ladder crosswalks, while only 47 percent of crosswalks along (across side streets) are high visibility crosswalks.

Other enhancements for crossings include pedestrian-oriented lighting, audible cues announcing roadway location (as installed at the Kiely Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection) , tactile or colored waiting areas and crossings, automatic detection of pedestrians and bicyclists and adjusted crossing times that vary with the crosser.

Curb Extensions and Protected Intersections
Intersections are primarily designed for processing vehicles and managing vehicle conflicts. Bicycle and pedestrian oriented intersection treatments narrow the crossing length and provide dedicated intersection space for vulnerable users.

• Curb Extensions widen the sidewalk area into the
intersection, narrowing the roadway, decreasing the speed 485
CC 09-03-2025
485 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 17
of right-turning vehicles, and creating shorter crossings for pedestrians. They also improve the visibility of pedestrians to drivers.

• Protected Intersections for bicycles create additional space on the sides and through intersections for bicyclists and pedestrians. Buffers, generally raised curbs, separate bike lanes on the sides and corners of the intersection and bicycle lanes are striped next to crosswalks through the intersection. Similar to curb extensions, these treatments create waiting areas while making vulnerable users more visible to slower right-turning vehicles.

Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino

Connections Across Barriers
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is the longest continuous east/west roadway in the study area: other than I-280, there is not a parallel roadway which makes the full connection from Cupertino to San José in the study area.

The physical barriers in the Corridor, both natural and man-made from west to east are:
• Stevens Creek
• Union Pacific Rail Tracks
• State Route 85
• Calabazas Creek
• Saratoga Creek
• Lawrence Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• I-880/State Route 17
• Los Gatos Creek
• VTA Green Line and Blue Line Light Rail Tracks

Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street cross over or under each of these physical barriers. Other facilities which cross barriers in the Study Area are:
• Saratoga Creek Pedestrian Bridge in Santa Clara
• Cypress I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Tisch I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Midtown-Fruitdale I-280 Crossing in San José
• Los Gatos Creek Trail I-280 Undercrossing in San José • Parkway Park San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing in Santa Clara

Improved wayfinding and identifying signage of these important crossings can enhance their usage and access among Corridor area routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Planned crossings in the study area for pedestrians and bicycles are:
• SR-85 Overcrossing from Grand Ave to Mary Ave in Cupertino • Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart Park and create a feasible pedestrian and bicycle connection design Source: City of Cupertino
486
CC 09-03-2025
486 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 18
to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and adjacent to
Lawrence Expressway connecting the cities of Cupertino, San José, and Santa Clara
• San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing (Greenlee Drive to
Coakley Drive/Constance Drive) in San José
• Carmen Road Bridge in Cupertino

Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies

Initiate priority intersections and crossings projects to minimize inconvenience and maximize safety for all users. These include:
• Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings for
pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Implement curb extensions and protected intersections.

• Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians and bicycles

• Review key hot spots for crossing improvements such as Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard at I-880 for
potential reconfiguration to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes.

Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row

487
CC 09-03-2025
487 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 19

6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a high- capacity transit system supported by station access
enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations.

Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting community assets.

A high-capacity transit system separated from the roadway would allow for a 20-minute connection from De Anza College in Cupertino to Diridon Station and/or Downtown San José. Potential stations could be at Diridon Station or Downtown San José, Meridian, Bascom, Winchester, Saratoga. Lawrence, Wolfe, and De Anza College.

The key components of the system would be easy access to a system to carry large numbers of people quickly along the Corridor.

The vibrant public spaces and central hubs characteristics of a separated, high-capacity transit system highlight the tradeoffs between transit and personal automobile travel. While automobiles will continue to play a significant role in the transportation system, they cannot address future transportation demands without increasing congestion. In contrast, a high-capacity system offers unique
opportunities to meet these needs while delivering high-quality service that aligns with principles of human-scale design, universal accessibility, and support of activity centers.

This system could provide reliable and safe connections among major connections in the South Valley with short travel times in an environmentally friendly way without adding to traffic congestion.

The high initial capital cost is the primary barrier to implementation.

However long-term cost savings to users and value to supporting neighborhoods and businesses with a sustainable, high-quality transportation service bring enduring benefits to the community.

At-grade separated transit could be side or center running transit separated / delineated either with hardscape (i.e., concrete curbs or plantings) or quick-build materials such as paint and plastic posts.

Preliminary analysis included in Appendix B indicates elevated transit in the Corridor would cost approximately $1.7 billion while underground transit in the Corridor would cost about $2.8 billion.

Combined with bus speed, reliability, and experience
improvements, the number of transit users in the Corridor would be expected to double over current conditions.

While the placement of guideway and type of vehicle used is not specified in this Vision Study, there was a clear community preference for an elevated fixed-guideway transit service.

Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor 488
CC 09-03-2025
488 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 20
Alternate Alignment Along I-280
In response to the City of Cupertino's Resolution No. 19-089, an alternate high-capacity transit alignment along I-280 is being considered. This alignment aims to address concerns regarding potential traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard that may result from Plan recommendations, while meeting the goal of enhancing regional connectivity. The I-280 corridor offers unique opportunities for integrating a high-capacity transit system that minimizes disruptions to surface street operations.

The proposed I-280 alignment would complement, rather than replace, the Stevens Creek Boulevard route. While the Stevens Creek Boulevard alignment focuses on connecting key local destinations with frequent stops, the I-280 route could provide a faster route between De Anza College and Diridon Station. This dual- corridor approach allows for a more flexible system that meets both local and regional transportation needs.

Key connections will be established through Cupertino's well- developed bicycle and pedestrian network, including the 3-mile off- street Tamien Innu Trail stretching from Mary Avenue to Vallco Parkway. Separated bikeways along Mary Avenue will offer a direct north-south route from the Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza College.

Additionally, Class IV bikeways surrounding the Wolfe Road interchange modernization project will provide convenient access for both shoppers at Main Street Cupertino and visitors to the redeveloped Vallco Shopping Center.

Further analysis is recommended to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of a high-capacity transit alignment along I-280.

Including this alignment in future studies could enhance the Corridor Vision by providing additional options to meet transportation demands.

1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/key-factors- successful-project-implementation
Implementation Approach
Implementing a new transit line is complex and requires sustained effort by champions at the agency staff and elected official levels.

As the County’s transit agency, VTA is best positioned to be the lead agency for the project. However, partnership with the Corridor municipalities is necessary for successful implementation as major improvements such as any grade separation would need Council or Board approval by individual agencies.

The project would likely be a part of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Capital Investment Grant/Expedited Project Delivery (CIG/EPD) Pilot program. Fortunately, VTA, the County of Santa Clara, San José and Santa Clara have experience with this program as the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project was part of the CIG/EPD pipeline.

Paraphrasing FTA’s key factors for successful project
implementation
1 of a major transit capital program involves
adequate project management and project control practices to manage:
• Input during planning, design and scoping phases
• Right-of-way acquisition
• Schedule
• Cost Estimating and budget
• Public engagement, information and communication
• Fair and comprehensive contracting documents
• Adequate underground investigation during preliminary engineering
• Successful coordination with public utilities
• Realistic and independently determined constraints and expectations.

489
CC 09-03-2025
489 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 21
Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of I-280

Specific considerations for implementation of an elevated transit service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor based on engagement are:
• Elevated transit stations could also provide crossings above Stevens Creek Boulevard for bicyclists and pedestrians.

2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/transportation/transit/airport-connector
• Spacing between pillars/footings should be adequate to maintain a two-way left turn lane in the shared Santa
Clara/San José section of Stevens Creek Boulevard for the loading and unloading of car carriers serving car dealerships. • Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service models should be explored.
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector
2 project which
could be expanded into the corridor.
• Review potential connections options to Diridon Station and Downtown San José.
• Collaborate with Corridor partners to study the feasibility of a parallel high-capacity transit alignment along I-280. • Assess how the I-280 alignment could integrate with the primary Stevens Creek Boulevard route through various
connections, offering a variety of transit options for local access.

490
CC 09-03-2025
490 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 22
Recommended High-Capacity Transit Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies

The next phase of project development consists of preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA). This would be followed by the funding commitments to complete engineering and final design and then a full funding grant agreement from outside funding partners (generally FTA) for construction.

As a new project, securing funding for development and
construction will be vital to implementation. The high-capacity, separated transit concept was included in Plan Bay Area 2050 (as a placeholder light rail service expansion) through the joint cooperation of Corridor agencies. It is currently being evaluated for inclusion in the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2050+. However, inclusion in these documents does not guarantee funding. Furthermore, Santa Clara County Measure A funds likely could not be used for further development of a separated transit option as the funds for transit are focused on bus speed and efficiency improvements.

Therefore, the best option is to secure competitive state or federal grant funds through programs such as: SB 1 programs of Solutions for Congested Corridors Program or Local Partnership Program administered by the California Transportation Commission or the Federal Transit Administration Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning or Accelerating Innovative Mobility Program or US Department of Transportation Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Program.

It is recommended a cooperative grant funding strategy be pursued by the Corridor agencies to place the high-capacity, separated transit service project forward for multiple competitive grant funding programs.

3 https://www.vta.org/projects/eastridge-bart-regional- connector#accordion-environmental-documents

Example Project Development Timeline
A project development timeline was developed based on the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector
3 timeline:
• Preliminary Engineering of three years (2025-2028)
• Design and Engineering of two years (2029-2030)
• Environmental Clearance of five years (2031-2036)
• Utility Relocation of two years (2037 – 2039)
• Construction of five years (2040-2045)

Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard

491
CC 09-03-2025
491 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 23

7. Recommended Implementation Actions For Consideration by Agencies Summary

1 Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation

Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions

Action Responsible agencies Next Step

1.1 Corridor Business Forum Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Convene Corridor Business Forum

1.2 Street cleaning and maintenance coordination Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Staff-level coordination of maintenance
activities

1.3 Set the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from
Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue
Cities of Santa Clara and San José Conduct Engineering and Traffic survey

1.4 Communicate business resources to Corridor
businesses
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop summary of eligible grants and loan
programs for businesses

1.5 Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and
speed education efforts
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Implement Vision Zero and Speed Reduction
Public Education

492
CC 09-03-2025
492 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 24
2 Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation

Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions

Action Responsible agencies Next Step

2.1 Complete an administrative policy for corridor-
wide transit signal priority through a centralized
system
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA
Administrative policy for the four agencies
operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of
Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the
County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to
implement a corridor-wide transit signal
priority through a centralized system.

2.2 Develop a program of Corridor bus speed,
reliability and experience improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA
Work with VTA to develop improvement plan
in partnership with a Working Group
composed of Corridor agencies

Table 5b: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range Potential Capital Component Responsible Agencies Unit Cost Quantities Cost Estimate Range
Develop Transit Signal Priority
Policy
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José
with VTA Implemented through staff coordination
Queue Jump at San Tomas
Expressway County of Santa Clara with VTA) $1.25m - $1.5m San Tomas Expressway $1.25m - $1.5m
Bus Bulbs/Islands Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara $270k-$400k Twenty 523 stops $5.4m-$8m Real-Time Information VTA $40k-$75k per
stop Twenty 523 stops $800k-$1.5m
Transit Experience
Improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara with VTA
$5k-$50K per
stop
Twenty 523 stops
and 74 23/51 stops $470k-$4.7m
Curbside Transit/Business
Access Lanes
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara with VTA
$500k-$1m per
mile

2.5 miles in San José $1.25m-$2.5m

2.5 miles in Santa
Clara/San José $1.25m-$2.5m
4 miles in Cupertino $2m-$4m
Total Cost Estimate Range $13.4m-$24.7m
493
CC 09-03-2025
493 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 25
Table 5a: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction (Location) of Improvements Cost Estimate
Range
Cost by Jurisdiction
City of Cupertino $3.6m-$7.3m
City of Santa Clara $2.8m-$5.7m
City of San José $4.4m-$9.4m
County of Santa Clara $1.6m-2.2m

494
CC 09-03-2025
494 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 26
3 Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation

Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions

Action Responsible Agencies Next Step

3.1 Physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos
Street to provide physical separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining access to driveways.

Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara Implement corridor improvements

3.2 Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Require sidewalk widening as part of
development dedications as needed

3.3 Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance

3.4 Install median refuge islands Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Review locations for installation of median
refuge islands

3.5 Install leading pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Review the potential for leading pedestrian
intervals at signalized intersections

3.6 Install Pedestrian-oriented lighting Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting
when street lighting is installed or replaced
in the corridor.

The ongoing implementation of physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor will be completed through incremental projects and funded through a variety of sources, for most projects the funding is not identified as shown in Table 7.

495
CC 09-03-2025
495 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 27
Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor Responsible
Agency Project
Cost
Estimate
($2024)
Funding Source
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2A) Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard $1.6m
City General Fund, One
Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
Program
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2B) De Anza Boulevard to Mary Avenue $1.6m
City General Fund, One
Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
Program
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 3) TBD TBD
Stevens Creek Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected
Intersection TBD TBD (development
project)
City of San José
Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Winchester Boulevard to Monroe Street TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5- Year List
Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Monroe Street to Macarthur Avenue TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5- Year List
Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Macarthur Avenue to Bascom Avenue TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5- Year List
West San Carlos Street Protect Bicycle Lanes -
Bascom Avenue to Woz Way TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5- Year List
West San Carlos Urban Village Streets
Improvements from I-880 to McEvoy $10m TBD
Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike
Lanes (south side) - Winchester Boulevard to
Lawrence Expressway
$2m TBD
City of Santa
Clara
Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike
Lanes (north side) - Winchester Boulevard to
Lawrence Expressway
$2m TBD

496
CC 09-03-2025
496 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 28
4 Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation

Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions

Action Responsible agencies Next Step

4.1 Support the continued development and
implementation of walking and biking network
improvements in parallel and connecting
corridors to the Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Continue to develop, fund, and implement
priority projects (over 70 identified in the
study area) such as:
• Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Proje
• Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (Ci
• De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lane (City of C
• Lawrence Mitty Park Trail (City of Cupertin

497
CC 09-03-2025
497 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 29
5 Corridor Crossings Implementation

Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions

Action Responsible agencies Next Step

5.1 Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings
for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Identify and implement enhanced, high-visibility
crossings

5.2 Implement curb extensions and protected
intersections.

Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Identify and implement curb extensions and
protected intersections such as the Stevens Creek
Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected Intersection in Cupertino

5.3 Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians
and bicycles
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José
Continue to develop, fund, and implement priority
projects such as:
• Safety improvements at the intersections of
Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard,
Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue (City of
Cupertino)
• Crossing of SR-85 from Grand Avenue to Mary
Avenue (City of Cupertino)
• Crossing of I-280 at Mitty Park (John Mise Park)
(City of San José)
• Crossing of San Tomas Expressway at Greenlee
Drive/Coakley Drive/Constance Drive (City of San
José)
• Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart
Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and
adjacent to Lawrence Expressway (Cities of
Cupertino, San José, Santa Clara, and the County
of Santa Clara)

5.4 Review key hot spots for operational and
crossing improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Review the intersection of Monroe Street and Stevens
Creek Boulevard at I-880 for potential reconfiguration
to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes

498
CC 09-03-2025
498 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 30
6 Separated, High-Capacity Implementation

Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step

6.1 Include project in Plan Bay Area 2050+
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Advocate for project inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+
and future Plan Bay Area cycles

6.2 Secure funding commitments
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Develop framework funding strategy

6.3 Work with VTA to initiate project development
process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, and the County of
Santa Clara
Obtain resources to initiate preliminary engineering
and alternatives analysis, environmental review and
the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) in a community engagement process

6.4 Include corridor-specific considerations in
project development process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Include the following in the project development
process:
• Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service
models should be explored
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector
project which could be expanded into the corridor
• Review potential connections options to Diridon
Station and Downtown San José
• Analyze an alternative alignment along the I-280
corridor in Cupertino
• Review coordination of corridor transit connections
for local and regional access

Preliminary estimates of the capital costs for various separated, high—capacity systems and service types are shown in Table 11.

499
CC 09-03-2025
499 of 551

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 31
Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems Potential Capital Component Description Cost Estimate
(in $2024)
Estimated Corridor
Travel Time
Estimated Daily
Ridership
Existing Conditions
Current peak hour conditions for
average VTA Lines 523 and 23 in the
corridor
- 39.4 minutes for Line 523

50.4 for Line 23 9,800
Transit/Business Access Lane
Early action option as part of Bus
Speed, Reliability and Experience
Improvements
$13.4m-$27.7m 30.4 minutes 12,600
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane
Includes development of 10 side
station areas $53m 29.3 minutes 12,950
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane – Excluding Cupertino Section
Includes development of 10 side
station areas—with limited
improvements at non-separated lane
sections
$29m 31.9 minutes 12,650
At-Grade Center Running Transit Lane Includes development of 10 center station areas $95m 27 minutes 12,600
Elevated Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$1,750m 20 minutes 20,200
Elevated Transit Line - I-280 alignment in
Cupertino
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$1,750m 20 minutes 19,250
Underground Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$2,800m 20 minutes 20,200

500
CC 09-03-2025
500 of 551
RESOLUTION NO. 19- 089
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT:

1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLETE STREETS AND TRANSIT EFFICIENCY STUDY FOR THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR, AND 2. SUPPORT

ONGOING DISCUSSIONS REGARDING A HIGH- CAPACITY TRANSIT
SERVICE IN THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD/ I- 280 CORRIDOR IN

COLLABORATION WITH THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) AND THE CITIESOFSANTA CLARA, AND SAN JOSS.

WHEREAS, Cupertino staff and Council members have participated in discussionswith neighboring communities since a multi-jurisdictional group was establishedby the SanJoseCity Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) to discusskey regional issues affecting West SanJose, with a focus on transportation and circulation; and
WHEREAS, the citiesof Cupertino, SantaClara, and SanJose, alongwith VTA, jointly developedand submitteda gradeseparatedhigh-capacitytransit conceptalong the StevensCreek Boulevard/I-280Corridor to the Plan Bay Area 2040process; and WHEREAS, TheVTA' srole ascounty congestionmanagement agency (CMA) and transit provider for Santa Clara County enablesit to bring together multiple cities and Santa Clara County together to study upgrading a corridor such as Stevens Creek Boulevard into a multi- modal, transit supportive corridor; and WHEREAS, the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and SanJose, along with VTA, jointly considered a scopeof work for a study that addressesstreetscapeimprovements to improve efficiency of existing transit services, with consideration of features such as transit signalpriority, streetscapeimprovements, safeand comfortablepedestrianand cycling facilities, and other improvements to support transit such as street trees, landscaping, and pedestrian scalelighting; and
WHEREAS, the citiesof Cupertino, SantaClara, and SanJose, alongwith VTA, jointly discussedthelong term goalof afully grade-separated, high-capacity, high speed transit that would be time competitive with auto travel along StevensCreekBoulevard/ 1- 280; and
WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015- 2040) supports the design and building of CompleteStreets 501
CC 09-03-2025
501 of 551
Resolution No. 19- 089

whichoptimizemobilityfor all modesthroughPolicyM-2.1, StreetDesign, andPolicy M- 2.2, Adjacent Land Use; and
WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015- 2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planningprocessesandworkingwith neighboringcitiestodevelopprogramsconsistent with thegoalsandpoliciesof Cupertino'sGeneralPlan, tominimizeadverseimpactson theCity'scirculationsystem, andtoaddressregionaltransportationandlanduseissues of mutual interestthroughPolicyM-1.1, RegionalTransportationPlanning; and WHEREAS, the Mobility Elementof the City of CupertinoGeneralPlan CommunityVision2015-2040) supportsstreetdesignandamenitiesconsistentwithlocal transitgoalsto improvetransitasaviablealternativeto driving throughPolicyM-4.5, Access to Transit Services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the City Council does hereby

1. Support efforts to study improving transit efficiency and streetscape improvementsalongtheStevensCreekBoulevardcorridor, and

2. Supportcontinuingongoingconversationsregardinghigh-capacitytransitservice alongtheStevensCreekBoulevard/I-280corridor, with theunderstandingthatit would:
a. Notusegeneralpurposetravellanesor adverselyimpactvehicularcapacity on City surfacestreets; and
b. Begradeseparated, andtime-competitivewith autotravel; and c. Study an alternate alignment in Cupertino along I-280, continuing to DeAnzaCollegeat thejunctionof SR85andStevensCreekBoulevard, ensuringservicetoareasofhighemploymentdensityandDeAnzaCollege, while connectingthe Cities of SanJose, SantaClara, and Cupertino, supportedby, and developedin collaborationwith, theSantaClaraValley Transportation Authority; and

3. AuthorizestheCityManageror designeeto assessresourcesneededto develop theseprojectsandreportfindingsto theCityCouncil.

PASSEDAND ADOPTEDat a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertinothis 161hday ofJuly, 2019by thefollowing vote:
502
CC 09-03-2025
502 of 551
Resolution No. 19- 089

Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinks, Willey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:

Steven Scharf, Mayor Date
City of Cupertino
ATTEST:

GraceSchmidt, City Clerk Date
503
CC 09-03-2025
503 of 551
RD:JAC:JMD
7/8/2019
RES. NO. 79207
RESOLUTION NO. 79207

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE SUPPORTING 1) A COMPLETE STREETS AND

NEAR-TERM TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR

THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TO BE

PREPARED JOINTLY BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) AND THE CITIES
OF SANTA CLARA, CUPERTINO, AND SAN JOSE, AND 2)

SUPPORT THE VTA HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY

AND IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT

SERVICE ALONG THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, the City Council of the. City of San Jose (“City”) approved the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan (“Plan”) on August 8, 2017, which supports high-capacity urban transit service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor; and WHEREAS, this Plan was prepared by the City and community to provide a policy framework to guide new jobs and housing growth within the Urban Village boundary and guide the characteristics of future private and public development, including transportation systems and streetscapes within this area; and WHEREAS, this Plan supports the identified growth capacity for this Urban Village in the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, providing the capacity for the development of approximately 3,860 new dwelling units and 4,500 new jobs; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Jose approved on August 8, 2017, forming a multi-jurisdiction group comprised of San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County to discuss key regional issues affecting West San Jose, with a focus on transportation and circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Santa Clara approved on September 12, 2017, the formation of a Stevens Creek Urban Village Taskforce to address land use on our shared borders; and
T-37084/1634536.docx
Council Agenda: 08-06-19
Item No.: 2.12(b)
1 504
CC 09-03-2025
504 of 551
RD:JAC:JMD
7/8/2019
RES. NO. 79207
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (“VTA”) role as county congestion management agency (“CMA”) and transit provider enables them to bring the three cities and County along the Stevens Creek corridor together to transform it into a multimodal complete street that improves transit service to support densifying land uses, enhance safety, reduce distances of pedestrian street crossings, incorporate streetscapes improvements that provide complete and comfortable walkway and bikeway networks, and add trees, landscaping, and pedestrian lighting; and WHEREAS, the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose, along with VTA, jointly developed a draft scope of work for a Complete Street and Near Term Transit Study, that considers new modes of transportation as an option; and WHEREAS, both near-term and long-term transit investments support San Jose’s General Plan and Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan by supporting more intense development near station areas and mobility for employees, residents, and visitors; and WHEREAS, transit investments made on this corridor could be used by private bus operators, autonomous vehicles, or other modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose, along with VTA, jointly developed and submitted a grade separated high capacity transit concept along the Stevens Creek Corridor to the plan bay area 2050 process;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:

1. The City of San Jose supports a Complete Streets and Near-Term Transit Implementation Plan that considers new modes of transportation, and a grade separated high capacity transit system for the Stevens Creek corridor, that connects the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, that is supported T-37084 /1634536.docx
Council Agenda: 08-06-19
Item No.: 2.12(b)
2 505
CC 09-03-2025
505 of 551
RD:JAC:JMD RES. NO. 79207
7/8/2019
by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

2. The City of San Jose appoints the District 1 Councilmember to any policy advisory committee created to oversee and coordinate these efforts.

3. The City Manager or designee is authorized to assess resources needed to develop these projects and report findings to the City Council.

ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: ARENAS, DAVIS, DIEP, ESPARZA, FOLEY, JONES
JIMENEZ, KHAMIS, PERALEZ, LICCARDO.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: CARRASCO.

DISQUALIFIED: NONE.

SAM LICCARDO
Mayor
TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk
T-37084/1634536.docx
Council Agenda: 08-06-19
Item No.: 2.12(b)
3 506
CC 09-03-2025
506 of 551
Adopted: 08/27/2019
507
CC 09-03-2025
507 of 551
508
CC 09-03-2025
508 of 551
RESOLUTION NO. 19-8781

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

CLARA TO SUPPORT WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (VTA) AND THE

CITIES OF CUPERTINO AND SAN JOSE TO DEVELOP A

COMPLETE STREETS AND TRANSIT STUDY, INCLUDING

OPTIONS OF HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT, FOR THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

W HEREAS, Santa Clara staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since amulti-jurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting West San Jose, with a focus on transportation and circulation; W HEREAS, the cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, and San Jose along with VTA jointly developed and submitted a grade separated high-capacity transit concept along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the Plan Bay Area 2040 process;
W HEREAS, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) role as County congestion management agency (CMA) and transit provider for Santa Clara County enables it to bring together multiple cities and Santa Clara County together to study upgrading a corridor such as Stevens Creek Boulevard into amulti-modal, transit supportive corridor; W HEREAS, the Santa Clara City Council approved on September 12, 2017 the formation of a Stevens Creek Urban Village Taskforce to address land use on shared borders; W HEREAS, the City of Santa Clara General Plan contains Circulation policies that include complete streets elements; and
W HEREAS, the City of Santa Clara adopted Resolution 18-8593 on August 21, 2018, which adopted a Complete Street Policy to support the design of roadways to safely accommodate all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, children, senior citizens, disabled people, and motorists.

Resolution to collaborate with VTA &neighboring cities Page 1 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
509
CC 09-03-2025
509 of 551

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City of Santa Clara supports a study exploring transit options including Complete Streets along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor.

2. That the study considers potential options for a grade separated high capacity transit system for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, that connects the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, that is supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

3. That the options considered in the study do not adversely affect streets in the City of Santa Clara.

4. That the City Manager or designee is authorized to assess resources needed to develop these projects and report findings to the City Council.

5. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 19T" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS: Davis, Hardy, Mahan, O'Neill, and Watanabe, and Mayor Gillmor
NOES: COUNCILORS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILORS: Chahal
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS: None
ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Resolution to collaborate with VTA &neighboring cities Page 2 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
510
CC 09-03-2025
510 of 551
RESOLUTION NO. 25-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ACCEPTING THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION

STUDY, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDED BY THE CUPERTINO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN

COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION, AND DIRECTING

STAFF TO WORK THROUGH THE MULTIJURISDICTIONAL WORKING

GROUP AND STEERING COMMITTEE TO FURTHER ASSESS THE
STUDY’S RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

IMPLEMENTATION

WHEREAS, Cupertino staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since a multijurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor with a focus on transportation and circulation; and

WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, San Jos e, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San Jos e to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and

WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015 -2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino's General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the City's circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M -1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and

WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vis ion 2015 -2040) and 2018 Complete Streets Policy support the design and building of Complete Streets, which optimize mobility for all modes through Policy M-2.1, Street Design, and Policy M-2.2, Adjacent Land Use; and

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2019, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution 19-089 supporting the study of transit efficiency and streetscape 511
CC 09-03-2025
511 of 551
Resolution No. 25-_____________

improvements for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in partnership with the City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and

WHEREAS, the process of completing the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Vision Study) was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee, comprised of elected officials from the partic ipating jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of participating agency staff and a community advisory group; and

WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and is being presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for acceptance;

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2025, the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) voted unanimously to recommend that the Cupertino City Council accept the Vision Study, passing a motion recognizing current progress toward improving Stevens Creek Boulevard and recommending that the Council accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor with the following qualifications:

1. The City maintains final decision-making authority regarding any projects or recommendations contained within the Vision Study.

2. The BPC reaffirms the City’s commitment to the provisions contained within Resolution 19-089.

3. All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection modifications, will conform to the City’s standard processes, plans, and procedures relating to public outreach and approval; and

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2025, the Cupertino Planning Commission reaffirmed the BPC motion and voted unanimously to recommend that the Cupertino City Council accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, with the following additional qualifications:

1. Prioritize investments in identity and maintenance.

2. Prioritize investments in safety, with a focus on, but not limited to, technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection.

3. Prioritize cost by limiting the corridor up to Bubb Road and limiting the study of transit alternatives to grade-separated transit. 512
CC 09-03-2025
512 of 551
Resolution No. 25-_____________

4. Invest in off-corridor bicycle and pedestrian networks such as, but not limited to, the Lawrence Mitty Trail and Tamien Innu; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directs City staff to work through the multijurisdictional working group to further assess the Study's recommendations and opportunities for implementation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (co llectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Resolution is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action to accept the Vision Study would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because the action involves only the acceptance of a document and does not approve or implement any specific project, policy, or physical improvements. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
513
CC 09-03-2025
513 of 551
Resolution No. 25-_____________

________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

514
CC 09-03-2025
514 of 551

Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING

THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, Cupertino staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since a multijurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor with a focus on transportation and circulation; and (comment: from draft resolution)

WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San Jose to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and (comment: from draft resolution)

WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino's General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the City's circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M-1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and (comment: from draft resolution)

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2019, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution 19-089 supporting the study of transit efficiency and streetscape improvements for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in partnership with the City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and (comment: from draft resolution)

WHEREAS, the process of completing the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Vision Study) was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee, comprised of elected officials from the participating jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of participating agency staff and a community advisory group; and (comment: from draft resolution)

WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and is being presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for acceptance; (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Master Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan identify separated bike paths along Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority. 515
CC 09-03-2025
515 of 551

Cupertino has been improving safety along the corridor through annual Capital Improvement Projects. (comment: added)

WHEREAS, Cupertino prioritized safety with the adoption of the Local Road Safety Plan in January 2023 and the Vision Zero Plan in July 2024, both of which identified safety projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard. (comment: added)

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs; (comment:
from Moore's draft)

NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT:

1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as one of many valuable planning documents for consideration.

2. The City wishes to ensure the following:

A. The City reaffirms its commitment to the provisions contained within Resolution 19-089, specifically that “high-capacity transit service along the corridor on City surface streets would not use general purpose travel lanes or adversely impact vehicular capacity”, and that it should “be grade separated, and time- competitive with auto travel”. (comment: part of BPC recommendation)
B. The City continues to advocate for a study, as stated in Resolution 19-089, of “an alternate alignment in Cupertino along I-280, continuing to DeAnza College at the junction of SR85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, ensuring service to areas of high employment density and De Anza College, while connecting the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. ” (comment: in line with BPC recommendation) C. The City maintains final decision-making authority regarding any projects or recommendations contained in the Vision Study. (comment: part of BPC recommendation)
D. All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection modifications, will conform to the City’s standard processes, plans, and procedures for public outreach and approval. (comment: from BPC recommendation)
516
CC 09-03-2025
516 of 551

3. The City remains committed to:

A. Improving safety along Stevens Creek Boulevard and other corridors throughout the City by implementing the Vision Zero Plan, the Local Roadway Safety Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.

B. Prioritizing investments in safety, with a focus on—but not limited to— technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection.

C. Considering cost-effective options to maintain prudent fiscal management and responsible allocation of public resources.

4. The City conditionally supports the Vision Study as a planning tool, while emphasizing the need to prioritize projects based on documented regional need and cost estimates—especially given the funding demands of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension. (comment: from Moore's draft)

5. The City does not support immediate funding or implementation of costly high- capacity transit in the 9-mile Stevens Creek Corridor without clear regional need and VTA prioritization under Government Code §65088. Future support will depend on VTA designating the corridor as a top regional investment priority. (comment: from Moore's draft)

6. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regionally prioritized transportation investment plan that allocates funding based on demonstrated need, and to evaluate the costs and benefits of any Stevens Creek high-capacity transit proposal in light of BART Phase 2 budget lessons. (comment: from Moore's draft)

7. The City directs staff to collaborate with VTA, MTC, and other agencies to advocate for a data-driven, needs-based approach to transportation planning, ensuring taxpayer funds are allocated responsibly and with clear benefit. (comment: shortened from Moore's draft)

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
[Mayor's Signature]
Mayor of the City of Cupertino
517
CC 09-03-2025
517 of 551

518
CC 09-03-2025
518 of 551

Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING

THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino participated in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, a multi-jurisdictional effort to develop a shared vision for mobility along a 9-mile stretch of the road, from Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino to Diridon Station in San José; and

WHEREAS, the Vision Study explored various transportation options including potential high-capacity transit; and

WHEREAS, the City acknowledges the importance of regional transportation planning and supports the exploration of mobility enhancements within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor; and

WHEREAS, the City is committed to prudent fiscal management and the responsible allocation of public resources;

WHEREAS, the BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project, a six-mile extension of BART service from Berryessa/North San José Station to the City of Santa Clara, originally estimated to cost around $4 billion, has seen its estimated project cost increase to $12.75 billion with an anticipated opening in 2036, a change reflecting updated engineering, risk assessments, and significant market shifts since the initial estimate in 2020;

WHEREAS, the estimated costs for potential high-capacity transit options within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, including a separate transit line, range from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion, with a timeline of at least 20 years for completion, indicating a substantial future investment;

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs;

WHEREAS, the City believes that substantial investments in high-capacity transit must 519
CC 09-03-2025
519 of 551

be carefully evaluated within the context of county-wide transportation priorities and documented need, taking into account the factors that have influenced the cost and schedule of similar major infrastructure projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension;

WHEREAS, the City supports strategically investing in expensive transit where it is most needed in the county;

WHEREAS, the City desires to express its conditional support for the Vision Study, recognizing its value as a planning document while advocating for careful prioritization based on demonstrated regional need and documented cost estimates, especially in light of the significant funding requirements of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension;

WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission has reviewed the Vision Study and recommended safety improvements such as protected bike lanes, recognizing Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority in the City's Vision Zero plan;

WHEREAS, the Cupertino Planning Commission has recommended acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for continued study while acknowledging the aspirational nature of certain elements and the significant funding required;

NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT:

1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as a valuable planning document.

2. The City Council acknowledges the recommendations of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission regarding the importance of safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and recognizes Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority for safety improvements in the City's Vision Zero plan.

3. The City Council acknowledges the Planning Commission's motion to recommend acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for further study.

4. The City recognizes the significant financial implications of high-capacity transit projects, as demonstrated by estimated costs within the Stevens Creek Corridor and changes experienced by the BART Phase 2 Extension Project. 520
CC 09-03-2025
520 of 551

5. The City does not endorse or commit to advocating for the immediate funding or implementation of expensive, high-capacity transit options within the 9-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, without a clear demonstration of regional need and documented prioritization by VTA in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088.

6. The City supports the concept of aspirational future high-capacity transit projects within the Stevens Creek Corridor, but only when VTA has clearly demonstrated that this corridor is a top priority for regional transportation investment, based on a comprehensive evaluation and documented in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088.

7. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regional prioritized plan for transportation investments that strategically allocates resources to projects demonstrating the greatest need, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor in light of the experiences with the BART Phase 2 Extension and factors influencing its budget adjustments.

8. The City directs staff to work with the participating agencies, including VTA and MTC, to advocate for a data-driven and prioritized approach to regional transportation planning and investment, ensuring that the allocation of taxpayer dollars is prudent and aligned with regional needs, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
[Mayor's Signature]
Mayor of the City of Cupertino

521
CC 09-03-2025
521 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14011 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 19.

Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Provide input to staff on the preferred options for having transportation projects reviewed by commissions and provide direction to staff to take the necessary steps to implement the changes.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
522
CC 09-03-2025
522 of 551

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025

Subject
Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters

Recommended Action
Provide input to staff on the preferred options for having transportation projects reviewed by commissions and provide direction to staff to take the necessary steps to implement the changes.

Background
The City of Cupertino currently relies on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC), composed of five appointed commissioners, to review and provide input on transportation-related matters. Historically, the BPC has played an advisory role in reviewing both transportation policy documents and specific project construction plans.

Their focus has primarily been on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, but their input has also extended to broader transportation issues. This has further been supported by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) which states that the BPC shall “…review, monitor and suggest recommendations for City transportation matters including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino.” Transportation related projects do not impact land uses and have therefore not been historically presented to the Planning Commission, except as part of the Capital Improvement Program when requesting consideration for General Plan Conformance.

Recently, the City Council has expressed interest in involving the Planning Commission in the review of certain transportation-related matters, particularly those with wider impacts on city infrastructure, such projects that result in the loss of vehicle lanes. This interest has prompted a need to re-evaluate the current structure of commission review of transportation projects. Each approach listed below will require CMC modifications, and staff will return with revised ordinances as appropriate for Council consideration for adoption after receiving direction from City Council on its preferred option.

Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
In response to Council’s interest and direction, staff has identified four potential options for allocating the review process of transportation-related matters. Each option reflects a 523
CC 09-03-2025
523 of 551

different approach to commission roles, and each has implications for staff time, project design processes, and community engagement.

It is recommended that each transportation-related item be assigned to no more than a single commission for review and recommendation. Involving multiple commissions in reviewing the same item will create additional demands on staff resources, potentially requiring additional staffing. It may also lead to confusion or conflict if the commissions offer differing recommendations and could result in commissioners feeling disenfranchised if their input is ultimately disregarded by City Council.

Clear criteria to differentiate which commission will review which project types is necessary. It will also be necessary to assign the City Manager the authority to determine which commission will be presented with a given topic when it is unclear which commission would be the most appropriate.

Option 1 - Split responsibilities between Planning Commission and BPC  Planning Commission reviews: Broader transportation related planning documents.

These documents would include Vision and Master plans that provide long-term goals and establish defined project lists (ie. Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, Active Transportation Plan, etc.)
 BPC reviews: Transportation project conceptual and construction plans, and policy documents that directly relate to bicycle, pedestrian or other non-vehicular modes of transportation that have little to no impact on vehicular traffic.

Pros: Retains BPC's expertise and continuity on transportation construction projects and bicycle and pedestrian related policy documents.

Planning Commission engagement on long-term planning documents provides a broader planning lens.

Cons: May result in some overlap or confusion regarding boundaries of commission responsibilities as the line between Vision Studies and conceptual plans can blur.

Meeting the heightened internal preparation needs would require a measured increase in staffing resources.

Option 2 - Expanded role for Planning Commission with focus on major infrastructure changes
 Planning Commission reviews: Broader planning related documents, as well as preliminary conceptual plans and design plans for projects that propose to eliminate vehicle lanes or reconfigure intersections in a way that may have an impact on 524
CC 09-03-2025
524 of 551

vehicular travel. The Planning Commission, being a quasi-approval authority, would provide approval for projects and plans that do not require City Council approval.  BPC reviews: Remaining design plans focused on multimodal elements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit) with little to no potential impact on vehicular travel.

Pros: Planning Commission input on potentially impactful projects supports broader citywide goals.

BPC continues role in multimodal-focused project reviews.

Cons: BPC may lose ability to advise on projects that affect bicycles and pedestrians if the project also has the potential to impact vehicular modes of transportation.

Meeting the heightened internal preparation needs would require a measured increase in staffing resources.

Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”
 All transportation matters continue under current BPC purview, including projects relating primarily to vehicular travel even if not focused on bicycle or pedestrian travel.
 Rename commission to reflect broader transportation role and improve public understanding.

Pros: Maintains current structure with minimal disruption.

Clarifies commission’s scope and responsibilities.

Would not create a significant increase in staffing resources or costs.

Cons: May not address Council’s interest in broader Planning Commission engagement.

Option 4 - Transition all transportation matters to Planning Commission  Planning Commission becomes “Planning and Transportation Commission.”  BPC is disbanded, and all transportation-related matters are consolidated under a single commission.

Pros: Centralizes decision-making for land use and transportation.

Potentially improves coordination between planning and mobility efforts. 525
CC 09-03-2025
525 of 551

Cons: Loss of specialized bicycle and pedestrian advisory body, with corresponding potential impact to active transportation grant eligibility.

Risk of reducing focus on multimodal transportation issues.

Meeting the heightened internal preparation needs would require a measured increase in staffing resources.

Next Steps
Once the City Council provides direction, staff will take the necessary steps to implement the changes, including preparation of any necessary policy changes and/or ordinances for modification of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Staff will return to City Council with these final documents for approval.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
Each option is expected to have small to moderate impacts on staffing resources.

However, changes in commission structure and review processes could influence the scope and timing of project design and consultant contracts. These impacts are estimated to range from $5,000 to $30,000 per transportation related project, depending on the size and complexity of future projects. Full cost implications will be better understood as specific projects are implemented under the new framework.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None

Council Goal:

N/A

California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works

Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager

Attachments:

N/A
526
CC 09-03-2025
526 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14205 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 20.

Subject: City Manager Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
527
CC 09-03-2025
527 of 551
Good evening,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Welcome back! After a brief summer pause, I am excited to share updates from across the organization. While there were no Council meetings, we still accomplished a lot—advancing projects, preparing for upcoming initiatives, and supporting community programs and events that continued throughout the summer months. We look forward to returning to a regular meeting schedule and building on the momentum of the summer as we head into a busy and productive fall. Thank you for staying engaged, and I’m excited to keep sharing the great work of our City with you!
Updates and Announcements
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Trained!
The August CERT academy saw a large Cupertino contingency in attendance. This was the first time when a current Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Manager had signed up for this training. The class, hosted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, focuses on disaster preparedness and provides a foundational overview of how local CERT members can support their communities in times of crisis. Please join me congratulating the recent graduates! I encourage everyone to
sign up for the upcoming class.
528
CC 09-03-2025
528 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Introducing Cupertino Restaurant Week: October 6 - 12, 2025 In celebration of Cupertino’s 70th anniversary, the City is proud to announce its first-ever Restaurant Week, happening Monday, October 6 to Friday, October 12, 2025.

This exciting new campaign will invite the community to support local dining spots while enjoying exclusive promotions and specials from participating restaurants. For more details and a full list of participating restaurants, visit cupertino.gov/taste70.

The full list of participating restaurants will be available starting Monday, September

15. Let’s eat local, celebrate local, and enjoy everything our community has to offer.

Celebrating 70 Years with the Fall SCENE
The Fall 2025 issue of the Cupertino Scene has been released and highlights several key community initiatives and celebrations. This edition is available digitally, and limited print copies will be available at City Hall and other facilities.

This edition highlights Cupertino’s 70 years of history, a call for 2025 CREST Award nominations, resources for Emergency Preparedness Month, and an overview of the FY 2025-26 budget. The publication continues to serve as a valuable tool for keeping the community informed and engaged. Enjoy the full issue at cupertino.gov/scene.

City’s Stance Regarding State Housing Law
The City of Cupertino issued a press release on Tuesday, August 19 in response to the letter received from HCD. The City reaffirmed its commitment to complying with housing laws while disagreeing with HCD’s interpretation of the 90-day correction period, and emphasized fair application processing, constructive dialogue, and balancing state requirements with community values. Residents have responded positively to the City's clear stance. The press release is available on the City’s Press
Release webpage.

Hybrid Meetings Are Starting In September
We are excited to share that the City will begin offering fully hybrid Commission and Committee meetings in September. This new format will make it easier for the public to participate—whether in person or virtually—helping to encourage broader community engagement.

Thanks to the support from Council, now we have dedicated staff in place to support this transition, assisting with agendas, logistics, and live technical support to ensure meetings run smoothly and remain in full compliance with the Brown Act. 529
CC 09-03-2025
529 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Monthly Mayor’s Chat Request Form Now Available
A new request form for the Monthly Chat with the Mayor is now available at before and during the meeting for residents who wish to submit questions or requests. This will help the Mayor in collecting feedback, addressing community questions, and ensuring a more productive conversation during the session.

We look forward to using this opportunity to discuss local concerns with residents and provide updates on City planning and governance. The form is avialable at cupertino.gov/mayorchat.
‘No Turn on Red’ Restrictions Relaxed on McClellan Road/ Stelling Road
The City has recently relaxed many of the “NO TURN ON RED” restrictions at the intersections of McClellan Road/Stelling Rd. They were implemented several years ago, along with concrete bike lane buffers, as part of the McClellan Road corridor improvement project. The turn restrictions were in effect 24/7 and were intended to provide enhanced safety to bicyclists using McClellan Road, specifically to those bicyclists using the green bike boxes at the intersections.

Lawson Bike Path Completion
The Cupertino Union School District extended its gratitude to the City and the Safe Routes to School program for the successful completion of the Lawson Bike Path. In a message from Superintendent Stacy Yao, CUSD highlighted the City for the well- produced introductory video and recognized the path as an important enhancement to student and community safety.

After listening to community feedback and performing field observations, staff determined that the turn restrictions could be limited to the before- and after-school drop-off and pick-up times without compromising safety. This change would further reduce delays for vehicles turning right at the intersections outside of these times, resulting in a win-win situation.

I have received positive feedback from community members including our Planning commissioner who appreciates the City taking resident concerns into consideration.

Block Leader Directory
Block Leaders can now connect through a new directory, available exclusively to registered block leaders via the volunteer portal. Organized by reporting zones, the directory includes a map on the first page, with each section featuring a screenshot of the relevant zone. The final page lists contact information for those who wish to share details without revealing their location. A step-by-step access guide was sent to block leaders on Tuesday, August 19.

530
CC 09-03-2025
530 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Welcome New Businesses - HEYTEA & Molly Tea
Two new boba tea cafés recently opened in Cupertino, adding exciting variety to the city’s food scene. HEYTEA opened at 19469 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Main Street Cupertino, in the space formerly occupied by Pasta Armellino. Its arrival marks a fresh addition to Cupertino’s dining options.

Molly Tea has also moved into the former Barraco Coffee location at 19110 Stevens Creek Boulevard, which had been vacant since last year. With tenant improvements completed, the City looks forward to seeing this new local business thrive and the space reactivated.

New ERP Project Update
We are pleased to share that the ERP replacement project has reached a key milestone of the ten proposals received in response to the City’s RFP, seven met the minimum qualifications and were thoroughly evaluated by the selection committee.

Based on this evaluation, three vendors have been shortlisted to advance to the next phase of the process.

These finalists will participate in on-site software demonstrations and implementation strategy presentations sometime in August/September timeframe. Following these sessions, the committee will complete additional due diligence and its final evaluation to identify a preferred finalist vendor with which to begin contract negotiations and statement of work development.

Our goal is to present the recommended contract for City Council approval before the end of the calendar year.

Cupertino Puzzle Hunt
As part of the Mayor's Initiatives, Solving Fun will be hosting the Cupertino Puzzle Hunt--a free, family-friendly adventure where participants of all ages can journey to wonderful places in Cupertino to find clues and solve puzzles throughout the month of October, Puzzles will be available at the Cupertino Library or can be downloaded by going to
solvingfun.com/cupertino.

Signage at Jollyman Playground
New permanent signage has been installed at Jollyman Park playground to enhance user safety and provide clear guidelines. The sign includes multilingual text (English, Chinese, and Braille) and highlights important reminders such as: no dogs, skateboarding, bicycles, glass, or alcohol in the play area, and a warning that surfacing and play structures may become hot and should be checked before use.

This installation supports community feedback and reinforces the City’s commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive play environment.

531
CC 09-03-2025
531 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
De Anza College Parking Policy Update
At the Foothill‑De Anza Community College District board meeting on July 7, it was confirmed that paid parking for visitors and the public will resume in Fall 2025 at $3 per day, while student and staff parking will remain free through Spring 2026.

The district plans to introduce a license-plate reader system in partnership with Educational Technology Services and campus police to manage access, though the system will not be in place by this Fall. With approximately 5,000 parking spaces on campus and 69% of classes now online, availability remains high.

Additional implementation updates will be posted on the district’s official website.

These improvements are highly visible to residents and visitors alike, contributing to a more modern and welcoming streetscape across Cupertino. We’ve completed significant phases of pole replacement and are actively upgrading over 2,000 streetlights to LED fixtures. These efforts support the City’s long-term goals around sustainability and safety.

Citywide Streetlight Story Map
Another update on the City’s ongoing streetlighting improvements. Through two major initiatives—the replacement of aging streetlight poles and the upgrade to LED lighting—we are making noticeable, citywide enhancements to both safety and energy efficiency.

Letter of Interest Submitted for 10480 Finch Avenue Property On August 21, the City sent a formal letter of interest to Cupertino Union School District expressing interest in pursuing negotiations for the potential purchase of the property at 10480 Finch Avenue. As part of this process, staff are preparing due diligence materials and will begin engaging with the District’s negotiators.

Pacific Workspaces
Pacific Workplaces, a provider of coworking and hybrid work solutions, is expanding its location at 10080 N Wolfe Road with an additional 5,280 square feet, bringing its total footprint to over 20,000 square feet. Opening this fall, new members can join the waitlist now to take advantage of special savings on 12-month and 6-month leases. To learn more and complete an interest form, visit Cupertino Expansion
Space Interest Form.
532
CC 09-03-2025
532 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Encampment Resolution Completed at Alves/Bandley
On August 14, at approximately 9 a.m., the cleanup of the unhoused encampment located at Alves Drive and Park Circle East was completed. The individual previously occupying the site had vacated prior to the cleanup. The City’s contractor removed all remaining belongings, trash, and debris, and completed a general site cleanup. Additional cleaning of the sidewalk surface will be also conducted. The conditions at this encampment site has continued to deteriorate prompting the City to schedule the clean up.

Sheriff’s Office Update: Jugging Crime Awareness
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has reported an increase in “jugging” incidents across the county. Jugging occurs when suspects follow individuals after withdrawing cash from a bank, ATM, or financial institution, then attempt to rob them —often using ruses, threats, or violence.

To reduce the risk of being victimized, the Sheriff’s Office advises residents to stay aware of their surroundings when leaving a bank or ATM, avoid leaving cash inside vehicles, vary their routes after financial transactions, and carry cash and valuables discreetly. Anyone who believes they are being followed should call 9-1-1 immediately.

For more information, visit the Sheriff’s Office public safety resources at sccgov.org/sheriff.

Recent Events
SR2S Middle School Bike Skills Workshop
Cupertino Safe Routes to School, in partnership with Wheel Kids, hosted a Middle School Bike Skills Workshop on August 24. The program was designed to help rising 6th to 8th graders and their parent or guardian build confidence biking to school through lessons on safety, traffic rules, and a neighborhood group ride. Learn more at
cupertino.gov/saferoutes/msbs.

Community Hall Upgrades
The Community Hall upgrades project remains on track, and while the timeline is still tight, we are making steady progress toward completion. The upgrades are expected to be ready for use following the August recess, with staff prepared to support a smooth transition. Thank you for your continued support as we modernize this important space.
533
CC 09-03-2025
533 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Cupertino National Night Out
On August 5, Interim Deputy City Manager Kirsten Squarcia attended Cupertino Night Out on my behalf, visiting neighborhood gatherings on Columbus Avenue and at Portal Park, Woodhill Court, and Monterey Court. These events brought residents together and created opportunities to connect with the City, share local concerns such as safety and traffic, and strengthen neighborhood relationships. Thanks to our OEM staff and public safety partners for their help organizing the event!
Bell Ringing for Peace
On August 6, I joined Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmember Mohan in attending the Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister Cities’ 6th Annual Community Bell Ringing for World Peace. Held behind the Quinlan Center at Cupertino Memorial Park, the event commemorated the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Toyokawa, Japan, and provided a meaningful opportunity for the community to gather in a collective reflection and call for peace.

The event provided updates, shared key information, and offered residents an opportunity to ask questions and voice concerns. Ben Fu, Director of the Community Development Department, participated as a panelist during the meeting joining representatives from other agencies to address community concerns.

Lehigh/Heidelberg Materials Cement Plant and Quarry Public Meeting
Santa Clara County Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga hosted a community meeting on July 31 to discuss the current status of the Lehigh/Heidelberg Cement Plant and Permanente Quarry.

Board of Supervisors Hearing on Healthcare Sales Tax Measure On August 7, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors held a special hearing to consider a countywide sales tax measure in response to significant healthcare funding cuts under H.R. 1.

Kids ‘N Fun Festival
The annual Kids ‘N Fun Festival took place on Saturday, August 23. This free, City- sponsored event—managed by an external organization—celebrated culture, community, and family fun. Attendees enjoyed a full day of live performances, games, food, and hands-on activities for kids of all ages. It was a wonderful opportunity to connect with neighbors, discover new experiences, and create lasting memories.

534
CC 09-03-2025
534 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
De Anza Peace Pole Dedication Ceremony
On August 20th, I had the pleasure of attending the dedication ceremony of Cupertino’s first Peace Pole, held at De Anza College, alongside Vice Mayor Kitty Moore. This meaningful event, hosted by the Rotary Club of Cupertino in partnership with De Anza College, marks a significant step in promoting peace within our community.

The Peace Pole, part of a global movement spanning over 180 countries, serves as a visible symbol of our shared commitment to fostering harmony and understanding among all people. The ceremony included thoughtful remarks and a time for community fellowship, reinforcing the collective hope for a more peaceful world beginning right here in Cupertino.

2025 Bobateeno Community Showcase
The Cupertino Civic Center hosted the Bobateeno Youth Clubs Day event on August 17th, bringing together youth organizations, nonprofits, and boba enthusiasts for an afternoon of games, socialization, and free boba. Attendees enjoyed fun activities like boba flavor tastings, guessing and voting for their favorite flavors, and exploring local youth clubs.

The event also featured live performances, interactive games, and opportunities for kids and teens to connect with peers and organizations from around the area. All in all, it was a lively, joyful celebration that showcased Cupertino’s community spirit and its sweet love for boba!
Annual India Flag Raising Ceremony
On August 15, I attended the 79th India Independence Day Flag Raising Ceremony, hosted by Cupertino-Bhubaneswar Sister Cities Inc. and the City. The event was honored by the presence of the Consul General of India from San Francisco, and Mayor Liang Chao shared remarks highlighting the importance of diversity and cultural celebration.

Performances by Xpressions and Pampa Dance Academy, along with the performance of the national anthem by two local students, added to the celebratory atmosphere. I am proud to celebrate India’s rich heritage, and I’m grateful to everyone who took part.

The Board approved moving forward with the measure, which aims to support Santa Clara Valley Healthcare and prevent service disruptions such as trauma center closures and overwhelmed emergency departments. The decision is expected to impact all county residents and may also affect future local sales tax measures.

Additional details, including the agenda and staff reports, are available on the Santa
Clara County Board and Commission Meetings website.
535
CC 09-03-2025
535 of 551
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
Over the past several weeks, I participated in a number of meetings with residents, commissioners, and developers to discuss projects and community priorities. These included conversations with residents of Baxley Court regarding the proposed development on Evulich Court, as well as a separate meeting with SummerHill Homes on their project at 10857 Linda Vista Drive. I also met with residents concerned about the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project, where topics such as traffic, safety, and parking were discussed.

Additionally, I spoke with Cupertino resident and Boy Scout Dhruva Joglekar, who is working toward his Citizenship in the Community merit badge, about City Council priorities and ways youth can get more involved in local government. I also met with Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Seema Swamy and Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao to discuss facility use, the Active Transportation Plan, and other City issues.

Updates from Recent Meetings
Upcoming Events
Community Coffee with Assemblymember Ahrens and
Mayor Chao
Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, in partnership with Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao, will host a Community Coffee on Saturday, September 6, from 9:30 to 11 a.m. at the Quinlan Community Center (10185 N. Stelling Road, Cupertino). Residents are invited to discuss state and local matters. RSVP at
tinyurl.com/PACupertinocc.

Tina Kapoor

I N T E R I M C I T Y M A N A G E R

W A R M R E G A R D S ,
Thank you for your continued support. I will see you all at the September 3 City Council Meeting.

All City Manager Reports are posted with the Council agenda and can be found online on the
City Council Webpage.

City Manager Reports Posted Online
536
CC 09-03-2025
536 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13576 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 21.

Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
537
CC 09-03-2025
537 of 551
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025

Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen

Report Dates: 7/8/25 to 8/25/25

Item Date, Title, and Description:

Event 1. July 24, 2025 – CASCC Executive Committee Meeting – I attended the scheduled Executive Committee Meeting of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA in my capacity as the organization’s Second Vice-President. We confirmed and previewed items for the August 14 Legislative Action Committee and Board Meetings. Meeting materials are available on the CASCC website here.

Event 2. August 4, 2025 – Meeting with the Interim City Manager – I met with Interim City Manager Kapoor to discuss items of interest to residents and stakeholders, to follow-up on council-directed action items, to discuss future council agendas, and to examine regional and statewide matters impacting Cupertino.

Event 3. August 13 – Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board Meeting – I attended the regular August meeting of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board of Directors in my capacity as Cupertino’s appointed representative there. In report out from Closed Session, the Board voted unanimously to initiate litigation against a contract developer of a clean energy project for breach of said contract. In a break from its normal practice of meeting at Cupertino Community Hall, the Board met at Sunnyvale City Hall in its Council Chambers. Board materials are available on its website here. Major items included:

1. A report on vacancies, recruitment, and retention pursuant to AB 2561 showing that SVCE has a 100% retention rate reflecting overall strong employee satisfaction inside the organization.

2. Authorization for the SVCE CEO to execute prepay agreements as part of a Power Supply Contract with CCCFA to better leverage debt and produce savings for the organization.
538
CC 09-03-2025
538 of 551
City Council Councilmember Report

2 3. Authorization of an agreement with IP Darden LLC for procurement of 93 megawatts of solar power through the construction of a solar power generation and collocated battery storage facility to help SVCE meet its power supply goals beginning June 1, 2028.

4. Consideration and adoption of the Annual Budget.

5. A study session on the Fiscal 2025-26 Strategic Focus Areas and Strategic Plan.

6. An update on local agency action planning to support local agency electrification transition efforts.

Event 4. August 14 – CASCC Legislative Action Committee Meeting & Board Meeting – I chaired the CASCC LAC Meeting in my capacity as Second Vice President of the CASCC JPA.

Meeting materials are available on the CASCC website here. The Committee examined five bills and took action to recommend the following positions to the Board, which subsequently adopted the same positions:

1. AB 736 (Wicks) – Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 (watch)

2. SB 326 (Becker) – California Wildfire Mitigation Strategic Planning Act (support)

3. AB 632 (Hart) – Administrative fines and penalties – judgments

4. AB 906 (Gonzalez) – Housing Elements – affirmatively furthering fair housing – zoning (oppose – 7-3)

5. AB 66 (Tangipa) – CEQA exemption for fire safety egress route projects (watch)

Event 5. August 15 – India Independence Day Flag Raising Ceremony – Together, with Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmember Mohan, and assorted local electeds, I participated in the annual flag raising ceremony in honor of India’s Independence Day. The event was well attended despite the scorching heat.

Event 6. August 18, 2025 – Meeting with the Interim City Manager – I met with Interim City Manager Kapoor to discuss items of interest to residents and stakeholders, to follow-up on council-directed action items, to discuss future council agendas, and to examine regional and statewide matters impacting Cupertino.

Event 7. August 21, 2025 – Meeting with neighbors of Mary Avenue Villas proposal – I met with neighbors of site of the proposed Mary Avenue Villas ELI housing project to discuss their concerns about the project, process, an potential mitigation of eventual impacts.

Event 8. August 25, 2025 – Meeting with the Interim City Manager – I met with Interim City Manager Kapoor to discuss items of interest to residents and stakeholders, to follow-up on council-directed action items, to discuss future council agendas, and to examine regional and statewide matters impacting Cupertino.
539
CC 09-03-2025
539 of 551
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 3, 2025

Reporting Councilmember: Vice Mayor Kitty Moore

Report Dates: 7/8/25 to 8/25/25

Item Date, Title, and Description:

July 9, 2025. Special City Council Meeting Closed Session.

July 14, 2025. Meeting with Mayor and Interim City Manager.

July 14, 2025. Attended Mayor Chat. Spoke with a long-time CERT volunteer regarding the program status.

July 15, 2025. Regular City Council Meeting Closed Session.

July 16, 2025. Reviewed all City Administrative Policies including ones which overlap with Council duties.

July 16, 2025. Special City Council Meeting Commission/Committee interviews.

July 17, 2025. Council Recess Begins.

July 24, 2025. Water Ambassadors meeting at Valley Water. Learned about seismic retrofitting plans and asked questions regarding the status of the Stevens Creek Reservoir and earthquake safety plans.

July 28, 2025. Audit Committee Meeting. Chair Schmidt and I were assigned to the Budget Format Review Subcommittee which has and will be meeting over the next few months to learn about the implementation of the Moss Adams/Baker Tilly 540
CC 09-03-2025
540 of 551
City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report

2 recommendations to the budget format and provide feedback on navigation. This is part of an ongoing update to the internal processes and utilization of OpenGov and integration with the new ERP system. There will be community outreach during the process.

July 30, 2025. Meeting with CAO, ICM, and Mayor.

July 31, 2025. Attended Supervisor Abe-Koga’s Heidelberg Materials (Lehigh) update. Truck noise at pre-dawn hours was discussed without clear resolution.

August 4, 2025. Special Meeting of the Audit Committee. (continued July 28, 2025 meeting)

August 5, 2025. Meeting with SummerHill staff regarding various artists they have contacted to potentially provide public art for their project at the Staples location on Stevens Creek Blvd. Provided observations on the various art and noted that all had a range of color schemes and that they would need to decide whether they are interested in harmonious or contrasting colors for whatever type of work they decide to narrow down for their project.

August 5, 2025. 1
st Day of CERT training in Los Gatos. After speaking with a long- time CERT volunteer, signed up and requested others to join. Cupertino had excellent representation for this 3-week training program.

August 6, 2025. 1st meeting of the Audit Committee Budget Format Review Subcommittee with Staff.

August 6, 2025. Attended the Toyokawa Sister City Bell Ringing for Peace at Memorial Park.

August 7, 2025. CERT class #2.

August 12, 2025. CERT class #3.

August 14, 2025. VTA Policy Advisory Committee meeting. This meeting had an important vote for Cupertino regarding obtaining grant funding for SV Hopper.

August 14, 2025. Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Action 541
CC 09-03-2025
541 of 551
City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report

3 Committee. Reviewed and made recommendations for various bills to support or oppose.

August 14, 2025. Santa Clara County Cities Association Board Meeting. Supervisors Abe-Koga and Lee advocated for Measure A, however there was no vote of support or opposition on the matter. Concern was raised about ballot language and pay for physicians on Transparent Californa.

August 14, 2025. CERT class #4. Due to overlap with the other meetings, this training was taken as a make up watching the recording.

August 15, 2025. India Independence Day flag
raising at Civic Center Plaza. Bhubaneswar
Sister City in coordination with the City
held the annual flag raising with music,
dance, and refreshments.

August 17, 2025. Attended FOG India
Independence Day Parade in Fremont.

Now the largest in California and possibly
the US. Mayor Chao and I shared a
convertible for this exciting parade.

August 18, 2025. Tour of the Sports Center and Blackberry Farm Retreat Center with ICM Kapoor, Director Sander, and Mayor Chao.

August 19, 2025. CERT class #5.
542
CC 09-03-2025
542 of 551
City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report

4 August 20, 2025. Attended the De Anza
College/Cupertino Rotary Peace Pole Dedication
Ceremony at De Anza College. The Peace Pole project
brings messages in many languages on a crisp white pole with inscriptions wishing for peace. Chorale music with string accompaniment followed warm wishes for world
peace.

August 21, 2025. Audit committee Budget format Review
Subcommittee meeting #2 with Staff. Subcommittee and
Staff had a robust discussion regarding the draft which the Subcommittee was given one hour to review and prepare comments on.

August 21, 2025. CERT class #6.

August 22, 2025. Agenda look-ahead meeting with Mayor and Sr. Staff.

August 22, 2025. Informal Vice Mayor meeting with VMs from across the Peninsula Division.

August 23, 2025. Final CERT Skills Day with emergency drills and graduation ceremony! This course is
highly recommended for
community members to be
trained to render
assistance if needed, under guidance, in an emergency when first responders may 543
CC 09-03-2025
543 of 551
City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report

5 be overwhelmed by numbers of incidents. This was a record class size, post - Pandemic with Cupertino representing the most numbers
of students of any city with current and past electeds and commissioners and members of the public. The October
class is already filling up and is in Cupertino at the Monta Vista Recreation Center.

Links to register are here:
https://www.sccfd.org/education-and-preparedness-
overview/emergency-preparedness/cert/

August 25, 2025. Check in meeting with Mayor Chao, ICM Kapoor, CA Andrews, and ADCM Squarcia.

Council recess ends September 3, 2025.

544
CC 09-03-2025
544 of 551

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14085 Agenda Date: 9/3/2025
Agenda #: 22.

Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 8/27/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
545
CC 09-03-2025
545 of 551
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Cit
y Council
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Study SessionStudy Session
25-14156 Sub ject: Receive an update on the Active Transportation Plan efforts.

Closed Session
25-14180 Subject: Conference with legal counsel - ______; California Government Cod
e Section _____________
Ceremonial Items
25-14166 Sub ject: Recognition of September 16 as National IT Professionals Day 25-14243 Subject: Recognize the years of service for the Friends of Children with Spec
ial Needs (FCSN) Club
25-14252 Sub ject: Recognize the years of service for Parents Helping Parents 25-13641 Subject: Recognition of September 15-October 15 as National Hispanic Her
itage Month
Consent Calendar
24-13596 Sub ject: Approval of September 3, 2025 City Council minutes 25-13884 Subject: Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 25-XXXX regar
ding municipal code amendments for vehicle parking and oversized vehicle parking
25-13967 Sub ject: Approval of Accounts Payable for week ending __ 25-14130 Subject: Award of a design professional services agreement to DIALOG Des
ign LP for the City Annex Improvements project (420-99-248) for the renovation of an existing building located at 10455 Torre Avenue for a total not-to-exceed amount of $493,243. (Continued from July 1, 2025) 25-14146 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance No. 25-XXXX Municipal Code Amen
dments to Municipal Code Chapters 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.112 (Accessory Dwelling Units) to make edits for consistency with the provisions in State Law that relate to Accessory Dwelling Units. 25-14249 Subject: Approve a First Amendment to the contract with Independent Cod
e Consultants, Inc. for an increase of $220,000 to provide On-Call Plan Review Services for FY26 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $415,000.

Approve a Second Amendment to the contract with West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. for an increase of $220,000 to provide On-Call Professional Building Services for FY26 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $440,000.