02-02-16 Amended searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
CITY COUNCIL
5:30 PM
AMENDED Non-televised Special Closed Session (5:30) Followed by Televised Regular Meeting
(6:45)
Amended on 1/28/16 to update Item No. 15 Attachments B and C
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City
Council is hereby called for Tuesday, February 02, 2016, commencing at 5:30 p.m.
in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
95014 and the regular meeting following at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council
Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Said special meeting shall
be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under
the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue
1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of
case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California
Department of Transportation, et al.
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue
ROLL CALL
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
February 2, 2016City Council AGENDA
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Subject: Present Young Artist Awards to Saailey Palekar (Age 6-10), Kathy Liang
(Age 11-14) and Maya Kapur (Age 15-18)
Recommended Action: Present Young Artist Awards to Saailey Palekar (Age 6-10),
Kathy Liang (Age 11-14) and Maya Kapur (Age 15-18)
2.Subject: Presentation of "TacoCat" transporation video by students Derrick Lee
and Jonathan Fung and first place monetary award
Recommended Action: View video presentation and present first place monetary
award
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on
any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases,
State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on
simultaneously.
3.Subject: Approve the January 12 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
A - Draft Minutes
4.Subject: Approve the January 19 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
A - Draft Minutes
5.Subject: Approve the January 25 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
A - Draft Minutes
6.Subject: Approve the January 26 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
A - Draft Minutes
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
February 2, 2016City Council AGENDA
7.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 18, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-011 accepting Accounts Payable
for the period ending December 18, 2015
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
8.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 30, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-012 accepting Accounts Payable
for the period ending December 30, 2015
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
9.Subject: Letter Agreement between The Irvine Company, LLC, a California
limited liability company and the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation
agreeing to an advance contribution of $200,000 to be used for the I-280/Wolfe
Road Interchange Improvement Project and to be credited against Irvine
Company’s $7,000,000 future contribution that is currently contemplated as a
Development Agreement item for their proposed development for the Hamptons
Apartment Project at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue
Recommended Action: 1)Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
the Irvine Company, LLC to accept an advance contribution of $200,000 to be used
for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project
2)Amend approved FY 15/16 Operating Budget by an additional expense amount of
$1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget
3) Amend approved FY 15/16 Operating Budget by an additional revenue
amount of $1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget
Staff Report
A - Draft Funding Agreement
10.Subject: Bubb, Elm & McClellan Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Improvement
Project - Increase Contingency Authorization
Recommended Action: Authorize an increase in the construction contingency
amount by an additional $32,000 with funds from the current appropriated project
budget
Staff Report
11.Subject: Discontinue headline translations
Recommended Action: Discontinue headline translations and redirect the funds to
other budget priorities
Staff Report
12.Subject: Transportation Tax Measure Allocations
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
February 2, 2016City Council AGENDA
Recommended Action: Approve advocacy direction to City representatives
regarding the proposed Santa Clara County sales tax, including general funding
levels within expenditure categories, as developed in coordination with other North
County and West Valley cities
Staff Report
A - Draft VTP 2040 Project List 8-19-15
B - CC Resolution No. 15-077 Implementation of Long-Term Mass Transit Solutions Near Highway 85 Corridor
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
13.Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code
to prohibit marijuana cultivation, dispensaries, and deliveries and commercial
cannabis activities within the City of Cupertino. (Application No. MCA-2015-01;
Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino)
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No.
16-2140: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending
Section 19.08.030 and adding Chapter 19.98 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code Regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation Facilities,
Commercial Cannabis Activities, and Medical Marijuana Deliveries”
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
14.Subject: An ordinance amending Sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the
Cupertino municipal code to provide for a limited waiver of reimbursement
requirements when a property owner dedicates right-of-way for a city street
improvement or facility project.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
16-2141: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending
Sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to provide for a
limited waiver of reimbursement requirements when a property owner dedicates
right-of-way for a city street improvement or facility project,” with an amendment
directed by the City Council during the first reading of the ordinance amendment on
January 19, 2016 to include a provision in the ordinance language such that the city
council determines the percent of a waiver to offer for right of way acquisition for
individual projects as they are approved during the CIP budget process, to facilitate
the provision of sidewalks and street widening in certain areas where pedestrians and
bicyclists are prevalent
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - Redline Version of Draft Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO
4
February 2, 2016City Council AGENDA
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
15.Subject: Review and consider two development proposals (the Goodyear Tire
and Oaks sites) submitted for consideration by the City Council to authorize the
applicants to submit an application for General Plan Amendments and staff to
commence environmental and project review. (Application No.(s):
GPAAuth-2015-01 & GPAAuth-2015-02; Applicant: KT Urban, Mark Tersini
and De Anza Ventures (Oaks shopping center); Location: 21255-21755 Stevens
Creek Boulevard, 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard (Goodyear Tire); APN:
326-27-039, -040 and -041; 326-10-058)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution
No. 16-013 after determining which applications are authorized to move forward to
apply for General Plan Amendments
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution No. 16-013
A.1 - CC Reso No. 15-078: Policy on Authorization of General Plan Amendment applications
B - Goodyear Tire project plans
C - Oaks project plans
D - Correspondence
E1 - Economic Analysis_Hotel_Memo_01_21_16
E2 - Economic Analysis_Oaks_Memo_01.21.16
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
16.Subject: Construction Project Updates
Recommended Action: Receive updates
17.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO
5
February 2, 2016City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6;
litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90
days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal
law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested
persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the
City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply
with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s
office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for
a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any
disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance.
Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas
and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available
in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours
and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino
web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that
is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of
that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please
complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the
Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and
the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item
not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting
following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3)
minutes or less.
Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO
6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1408 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/22/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of
Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:ConferencewithLegalCounsel-ExistingLitigationpursuanttoParagraph(1)of
subdivision(d)ofGovernmentCodeSection54956.9.Nameofcase:CityofSaratoga;Cityof
Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1313 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Present Young Artist Awards to Saailey Palekar (Age 6-10), Kathy Liang (Age 11-14) and
Maya Kapur (Age 15-18)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:PresentYoungArtistAwardstoSaaileyPalekar(Age6-10),KathyLiang(Age11-14)
and Maya Kapur (Age 15-18)
PresentYoungArtistAwardstoSaaileyPalekar(Age6-10),KathyLiang(Age11-14)and
Maya Kapur (Age 15-18)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1411 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/25/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Presentation of "TacoCat" transporation video by students Derrick Lee and Jonathan Fung
and first place monetary award
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:Presentationof"TacoCat"transporationvideobystudentsDerrickLeeandJonathan
Fung and first place monetary award
View video presentation and present first place monetary award
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1316 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Approve the January 12 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Approve the January 12 City Council minutes
Approve the minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
At 3:05 p.m. Mayor Chang called the Special City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino City Hall Emergency Operations Center (EOC), 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014.
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council
members Darcy Paul, Rod Sinks and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None.
2. MAYOR'S OPENING REMARKS
Mayor Chang commented that this meeting was for each Council member to talk
about the top three items each would like to see accomplished this year on the
City Council.
3. GOAL SETTING - Items to be potentially included on future City Council
Agendas in 2016
Council member Paul talked about: 1. Affordable housing and leveraging
housing impact funds to partner with non-profits in addition to leveraging rental
developers to include inclusionary units; 2. Getting a small business
development center in Cupertino – need to look into space and funding;
Continue moving forward on acquiring a park on the east side of town, in
addition to looking into upgrading the Lawrence/Stevens Creek interchange
along Calabasas Creek.
Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan talked about: 1. Developing affordable housing for
seniors near stores, transit areas and other services, such as The Oaks or
Cupertino Senior Center which would allow seniors to be more mobile; 2.
Upgraded Teen Center and additional programs for teens and children in the
11
2
community including education on how local government works and what is
happening in the community; 3. Developing a public/private partnership to help
build facilities such as an Emergency Operations Center and/or new City Hall,
and how this type of partnership can give back to the community; 4. Traffic
calming measures to allow people to walk and bike more easily in Cupertino; 5.
More and better communication with residents.
Council member Sinks talked about: 1. Improving transit on the Highway 85
corridor so people can travel more easily to their jobs in the North Bay; 2.
Encouraging a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) transit center on Stevens
Creek and Highway 85 near The Oaks and think about what land might be
available for a transit center on the east side of town that would efficiently
connect with private buses and public transit; 3. Plan and develop bike and
pedestrian pathways across all parts of town and continue the working group
regarding safe routes to schools; 4. Look at supporting state initiatives and
actions regarding gun control; 5. Build a seismically safe City Hall; 6. Put
employee based business license tax on the November, 2016 ballot.
Council member Wong talked about: 1. Expanding parking at the Civic Center,
possibly using the Library Field or adding a parking garage; 2. Building a
community room at the Cupertino Library or other location in Cupertino; 3.
Continue to look at moving the Historical Society to McClellan Ranch; 4.
Expanding the Sister City program; 5. Reviewing the parking ordinance to
ensure adequate guest parking in residential areas.
Mayor Chang talked about: 1. Doing something about climate change and tie in
to the Community Choice Energy (CCE) program and provide shuttle buses to
help with traffic; 2. Encourage Lehigh to sell their property and/or force them to
comply with the law; 3. Pass meaningful gun control legislation; 4. Extend Walk
one Week (WOW) program and block the surrounding streets near schools for
the duration of the program.
Mayor Chang opened up the meeting for public comment.
Cupertino Planning Commissioner Don Sun talked about temporarily (no more
than 10 months) adding an hour before the start of the Planning Commission
meeting for the public to express concerns to the Commission on any upcoming
development projects.
12
3
Annabelle Chan speaking on behalf of the Cupertino Teen Commission provided
input on the new Vallco development to add a new Teen Center since the current
one is not in a useful space. She also asked for direct funding from Council for
the WOW program since funding currently comes from the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission.
Gary Latshaw talked about energy efficiency and climate change. He distributed
information from Prof. James Sweeney at Stanford University. He also talked
about a Cupertino resident who built an energy efficient house and asked that
the gentleman be allowed to speak to the City Council about it. Mr. Latshaw also
talked about an innovative transit program.
Pete Heller speaking on behalf of the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
talked about issues regarding climate, traffic and transportation, especially
adding Class 4 bike lanes (which are protected lanes with a physical barrier
between bicycles and autos) along major arteries, in addition to adding a class
one bike lane off the roadway and parallel to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
He noted that the new 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan that the Commission has
been working on will come to Council for approval in May.
Peggy Griffin talked about making sure a potential bicycle pathway along the
Hwy 280 sound wall goes from Wolfe all the way to De Anza and negotiate with
Apple to also take it to Lawson Middle School, which would be a step toward
taking the pathway to the Don Burnett Bridge and Homestead High School. She
asked for negotiations with employers for an easement to allow not only their
employees but also the public to be able to use the pathway.
Annie Ho speaking as a resident and not as a member of the Cupertino Library
Commission talked about needing a community room at the Cupertino Library
to handle the many programs including the ability to run multi-media. She said
that the Library Commission had already mentioned the need for a story room
expansion.
Mehrnaz Faramarzi, student at De Anza College, talked about offering more
opportunities for seniors including not charging them for organizing a group
event.
Council members talked in more detail about their top items mentioned
including a discussion on adding an employee based business license tax on the
November, 2016 ballot to be used for meaningful transit improvements as
13
4
proposed by Sinks. The proposal was supported by Chang but the other Council
members had concerns about competing ballot measures, it not being the right
mechanism for funding and needing further information. Council consensus was
for Sinks to continue to work with Carl Guardino and VTA for now.
Council followed up with staff regarding comments made from the public:
The potential bicycle pathway along the Hwy 280 sound wall would be
reviewed in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
The Class 4 bike lanes would be reviewed in the Bicycle Transportation
Plan and staff would look into the suggestion to initiate negotiations with
Union Pacific regarding the Class 1 bike lane
Mr. Latshaw could be encouraged to apply for the Sustainability
Commission
Funding for WOW would be budgeted
Staff would follow-up with the Planning Commission regarding meeting
an hour earlier for public input
Council concurred to ask staff to look into and possibly agendize the following
topics:
Gun control initiative - would be added to the Work Program
Civic Center development
Parking ordinance potential revision - already on the Work Program
Non-profit space (Teen Center & Historical Society space already being
looked into; Library story room currently in the budget)
Council also discussed and concurred on the following regarding the duration of
City Council meetings:
The goal would be for all Council meetings to end by 11:00 p.m.
If there are still items on the agenda to discuss, a majority of the Council
would decide to extend the meeting for another hour or continue the
items to either the next day or the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting
A majority of the Council would decide each hour whether to extend the
meeting another hour if there are still agenda items to discuss
The meeting would be cut off at 1:00 a.m. and a majority of the Council
would decide to either continue the rest of the items to the next day or to
the next regularly scheduled meeting
14
5
Council members would try to keep their deliberation comments to no
more than five minutes
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
5. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:08 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting.
_______________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:115-1240 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/19/2015 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Approve the January 19 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Approve the January 19 City Council minutes
Approve the minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 4:45 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang called the Special City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council members Darcy
Paul, Rod Sinks and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None.
Council went into closed session and reconvened the special meeting in open session at 5:40
p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue for the study
session.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section
54956.9. One case.
Mayor Chang announced that Council gave direction.
2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of litigation
pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Two
cases.
Mayor Chang announced that Council gave direction to staff.
3. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section
54956.8); Property: Cupertino Municipal Water System; Agency Negotiator: Timm
Borden; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and San Jose Water Company; Under
Negotiation: Terms for City Leased Asset.
Mayor Chang announced that Council gave direction to staff.
17
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
2
STUDY SESSION
4. Subject: Study session regarding Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) draft
background report
Recommended Action: Conduct study session and provide direction to staff
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Economic Development Manager Angela Tsui and Sujata Srivastava, Principal Strategic
Economics, Inc. reviewed the draft background report via a PowerPoint presentation.
Council provided the following direction to staff:
Acquire more recent employment and employer data
Look at property taxes for breakdown of usage
Look at different types of uses and their impact to local entities
Look at other potential uses of areas
Advise what City can do to help companies find space and what types of
space they are looking for
Overlay business license data to look at self-employed businesses
Look into trend in bay area and nationally regarding retail only or traditional
mall formats vs. mixed use
Look further into the hotel situation, whether or not the city has a shortage or
surplus of rooms
Advise what types of amenities or infrastructure attracts employers and
employees
Ms. Tsui noted that a draft strategic plan would come back to Council probably in the
spring for further direction before moving forward with more concrete plans.
5. Subject: Study Session to consider entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Rotary Club of Cupertino to renovate the Stocklmeir home and surrounding
property to utilize as a non-profit center for Cupertino
Recommended Action: Conduct a study session to consider the Rotary’s proposal and
direct staff to:
1. Put this item on a future Council agenda;
2. Provide additional information for Council consideration; or
3. Not pursue this proposal
18
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
3
Council member Sinks recused himself from this item and left the dais.
Director of Recreation and Community Services Carol Atwood introduced the item and
Cupertino Rotary President Wendell Stephens made a presentation to Council. He
answered questions from Council.
Janet Trankle thanked Rotary for its efforts to restore the building.
Kim Stocklmeir thanked Rotary for its efforts to preserve the orchard and house.
Council comments included: shorten lease term to 15 years initially and bi-lateral
agreement to renew every 15 years; include non-profit and residential usage of
property in agreement and specify how usage is divided up; encourage youth to use
property; recognize Stocklmeir name somewhere; look into finding home for Cupertino
Historical Society; more detail on sewer cost.
Council gave direction to staff to come back at another study session with a draft
agreement and more detail on renovation cost.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:57 p.m. Mayor Chang adjourned the special meeting.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 7:02 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang called the Regular City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council members Darcy
Paul, Rod Sinks and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None.
19
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
4
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATION
1. Subject: Update from the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission
Recommended Action: Receive the update
Written communications for this item included a PowerPoint presentation.
Technology, Information, and Communications Commission Chair Rod Livingood
gave an update via a PowerPoint presentation.
Council received the presentation.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Cathy Helgerson talked about the Lehigh Southwest Cement plant causing pollution and the
petition from Better Cupertino. She distributed written comments.
Jon Willey talked about proposed development at The Oaks and Goodyear Tire. He
distributed written comments.
Staci Yee read a letter published in the Cupertino Courier regarding what Cupertino used to
be and current issues with high density buildings and traffic congestion.
Phyllis Dickstein talked about issues with collecting petition signatures at Cupertino facilities.
Rhoda Fry talked about noise pollution issues in her area potentially coming from Lehigh.
Joan Chin talked about increasing traffic in and around Cupertino and offered some
solutions.
Peggy Griffin talked about concern over the amount of development in the community and
the residents having a voice with the Initiative petition.
Liang-Fang Chao on behalf of the Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative group talked
about the Initiative. She distributed written comments.
20
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
5
Liana Crabtree talked about issues with collecting petition signatures at Cupertino facilities.
She read a statement into the record.
Lisa Warren talked about a Letter of Intent from Sand Hill Properties to the Cupertino Union
School District regarding a new school proposal.
Steven Scharf talked about the Stocklmeir restoration proposal.
David Alesio talked about issues with noise pollution and identifying where a specific noise
might be coming from.
Don Sun talked about venues for residents to speak and encouraged them to speak at the
Planning Commission meetings.
Jerry Sheahan talked about the Hills at Vallco project and the financial backers of the Sand
Hill developers.
Susan Chen talked about supporting a public vote for Cupertino development and no support
for rezoning Vallco.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Wong moved and Savita seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
presented with the exception of item numbers 9 and 10 which were pulled for discussion.
Ayes: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
2. Subject: Approve the December 1 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes
3. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 13, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-001 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending November 13, 2015
4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 20, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-002 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending November 20, 2015
21
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
6
5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 25, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-003 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending November 25, 2015
6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 4, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-004 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 4, 2015
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 11, 2015
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-005 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 11, 2015
8. Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Deep Cliff Golf Course, 10700
Clubhouse Lane
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Deep
Cliff Golf Course, 10700 Clubhouse Lane
9. Subject: Summary Vacation of a Wire Clearance Easement within the Civic Center
property at 10300 Torre Avenue
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-006 summarily vacating a wire
clearance easement within the Civic Center property at 10300 Torre Avenue
Staff answered questions from Council.
Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-006 summarily
vacating a wire clearance easement within the Civic Center property at 10300 Torre
Avenue. The motion carried unanimously.
10. Subject: Update on Permanent Program for Early Morning Collection of Solid Waste
Containers on Select Streets in the Tri-School Area.
Recommended Action: Receive report with no changes recommended to permanent
program.
Sinks recused himself from voting on this item and left the dais.
Mayor Chang opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
22
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
7
Julie Johnson
Rhoda Fry
Scott Hughes
Revathy Narasimhan
Cynthia Cheng
Recology General Manager John Zirelli and staff answered questions from Council.
Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to receive the report with no changes
recommended to permanent program and gave direction to staff to bring a report back
to Council in about 9 months. The motion carried with Sinks recusing.
Sinks returned to the dais.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
11. Subject: Second reading of ordinance directing actions related to the formation of, and
Cupertino’s membership in, the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (SVEA), an
independent joint powers authority, which will provide a Community Choice
Aggregation Program to offer clean energy alternatives for Cupertino residents and
businesses
Recommended Action: 1. Conduct the second reading of the Ordinance No. 15-2138:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Authorizing the
Implementation of a Community Choice Agg regation Program” to create and
participate in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority; and 2. Appoint a regular
Director and alternate Director to the Authority’s Boar d of Directors and direct staff to
add Council’s appointment to the Authority to the future Council committee
assignments calendar
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 15-2138 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to enact Ordinance No. 15-2138. Ayes: Chang,
Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
23
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
8
Council reordered the agenda to take up item number 13 under Ordinances and Action Items
next.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
13. Subject: Order the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of
Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 15-112
Recommended Action: Note objections and adopt Resolution No. 16-007 ordering
abatement of a public nuisance (weeds)
City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report.
Wong moved and Paul seconded to adopt Resolution No. 15-112 ordering abatement of
a public nuisance (weeds). The motion carried unanimously.
Council continued with item number 12 under Public Hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. Subject: Enact an Urgency Ordinance and conduct the first reading of an ordinance
amending the Cupertino Municipal Code to prohibit marijuana cultivation,
dispensaries, and deliveries and commercial cannabis activities within the City of
Cupertino. (Application No. MCA-2015-01; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of
Cupertino)
Recommended Action: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2.
Enact Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2139: “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino establishing a moratorium on Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation Facilities, Commercial Cannabis Activities and
Medical Marijuana deliveries within the City of Cupertino pending completion of an
update to the City’s Zoning Code”; and 3. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No.
16-2140: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section
19.08.030 and adding Chapter 19.98 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation Facilities,
Commercial Cannabis Activities, and Medical Marijuana Deliveries”
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Senior Planner Adam Petersen reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.
24
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
9
Mayor Chang opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke:
Cathy Helgerson (distributed written comments)
Pam Rabeck
Mayor Chang closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the urgency ordinance.
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to read Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2139 by title only
and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the only reading thereof. Ayes:
Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to enact Urgency Ordinance No. 16-2139. Ayes:
Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the regular ordinance.
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 16-2140 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS continued
14. Subject: Consideration of Proposed Lease with Verizon Wireless for a cell tower to be
located on the Civic Center Property (Torre Avenue), subject to the terms of any City-
issued permits
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-008 to: 1. Authorize the City Manager
to execute an Antenna Ground Lease between the City of Cupertino and GTE Mobilnet
dba Verizon for a term of up to 5 years, for a cell tower to be located on the Civic
Center Property, in substantially the form as presented to Council, and subject to the
terms of any City-issued permits; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute up to two five year (5-year) options consistent with the terms of the Lease
Written communications for this item included an amended staff report.
Public Affairs Director Rick Kitson reviewed the staff report.
25
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
10
Mayor Chang opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Rod Livingood (on behalf of the Cupertino Technology, Information, and
Communications Commission - TICC)
Anna Soland
Santa Clara County Fire Chief John Justice
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Rick Sung
Ken Erikson (on behalf of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services)
David Alesio
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-008 to: 1. Authorize the
City Manager to execute an Antenna Ground Lease between the City of Cupertino and
GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon for a term of up to 5 years, for a cell tower to be located on
the Civic Center Property, in substantially the form as presented to Council, and
subject to the terms of any City-issued permits; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute up to two five year (5-year) options consistent with the terms of
the Lease. The motion carried unanimously.
15. Subject: An ordinance amending sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the Cupertino
municipal code to provide for a limited waiver of reimbursement requirements when a
property owner dedicates right-of-way for a city street improvement or facility project.
Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-2141: “An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Sections 14.04.100
and 18.56.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to provide for a limited waiver of
reimbursement requirements when a property owner dedicates right-of-way for a city
street improvement or facility project,” to facilitate the provision of sidewalks and
street widening in certain areas where pedestrians and bicyclists are prevalent.
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint
presentation.
Mayor Chang opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Cathy Helgerson
Lisa Warren
Peggy Griffin
26
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
11
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to read Ordinance No. 15-2141 by title
only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof with
the following amendment: Amend ordinance language such that the City Council
determines the percent of a waiver to offer for right of way acquisition for individual
projects as they are approved during the CIP Budget process. Ayes: Chang,
Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
16. Subject: Proposed Initiative submitted by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning
Action Committee
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-009 directing City staff to prepare
a report on the effects of the Initiative pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212
Written communication for this item included a resident email and an amended
resolution.
City Manager David Brandt reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Chang opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Cathy Helgerson
Liang-Fang Chao (on behalf of Cupertino Citizens Sensible Growth Initiative)
Peggy Griffin
Jennifer Griffin
Wong moved and Sinks seconded to adopt Resolution No. 16-009 directing City staff to
prepare a report on the effects of the Initiative pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212.
The motion carried unanimously.
17. Subject: Council committee assignments
Recommended Action: Approve assignments
Written communications for this item included the draft Council committee
assignments chart.
27
City Council Minutes January 19, 2016
12
Wong moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to approve the assignments. The motion
carried unanimously.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
18. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Chang and Sinks agreed to agendize the following items:
Regional transportation issues regarding the proposed Santa Clara County sales
tax for first meeting in February
Noise issues at Lehigh
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various
community events.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:05 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting of Tuesday,
February 2, 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber, Cupertino, CA.
Note: A special meeting of the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation followed tonight’s
regular City Council meeting.
_______________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes,
and then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may
be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.
28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1336 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Approve the January 25 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Approve the January 25 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Approve the minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™29
1
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25, 2016
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 4:09 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang called the Special City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council members
Darcy Paul, Rod Sinks and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
Written Communications for this item included a resident email to Council.
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with vacancies and terms
expiring: Sustainability, Parks and Recreation, Fine Arts, and Public Safety
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Sustainability Commission and
appointed Meera Ramanathan to a full term ending 1/30/20, Vignesh Swaminathan to a
full term (Business Representative) ending 1/30/20, Anna Weber to a full term
(Educational Representative) ending 1/30/20, Gary Latshaw to a partial term (counts as
full) ending 1/30/18, and Angela Chen to a partial term (counts as full) ending 1/30/18.
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission and
re-appointed Helene Davis and Judy Wilson to full terms ending 1/30/20.
30
City Council Minutes January 25, 2016
2
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Fine Arts Commission and appointed
Janki Chokshi to a partial term (counts as full) ending 1/30/19.
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Public Safety Commission and re-
appointed Robert McCoy and Andy Huang to full terms ending 1/30/20, and appointed
Neha Sahai to a full term ending 1/30/20.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, January 26 at 6:55 p.m.
for a special meeting regarding teleconferencing followed by Commission Interviews,
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A, Cupertino, CA.
_______________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.
31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1337 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Approve the January 26 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Approve the January 26 (commission interviews) City Council minutes
Approve the minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™32
1
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 7:26 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang called the Special City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Council members
Darcy Paul, Rod Sinks and Gilbert Wong. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with terms expiring: Housing, Audit
Committee, and Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC)
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Housing Commission and appointed
Nina Daruwalla (Business Representative) to a full term ending 1/30/20 and re-
appointed Krista Wilson to a full term ending 1/30/20.
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Audit Committee and appointed Peter
Shin and Mark Zavislak to full terms ending 1/30/20.
The City Council interviewed applicants for the Technology, Information, and
Communications Commission and appointed Arnold de Leon to a full term ending
1/30/20 and re-appointed Shishir Chavan to a full term ending 1/30/20.
ADJOURNMENT
33
City Council Minutes January 26, 2016
2
At 9:48 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting to the regular meeting of Tuesday,
February 2, 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber, Cupertino, CA.
_______________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.
34
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1366 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/14/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 18, 2015
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 18, 2015
AdoptResolutionNo.16-011acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingDecember18,
2015
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™35
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
December 18, 2015
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this second day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1373 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/14/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 30, 2015
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 30, 2015
AdoptResolutionNo.16-012acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingDecember30,
2015
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™59
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
December 30, 2015
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this Second day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:115-1271 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/9/2015 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Letter Agreement between The Irvine Company, LLC, a California limited liability company
and the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation agreeing to an advance contribution of $200,000 to
be used for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvement Project and to be credited against Irvine
Company’s $7,000,000 future contribution that is currently contemplated as a Development
Agreement item for their proposed development for the Hamptons Apartment Project at 19500
Pruneridge Avenue
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Funding Agreement
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:LetterAgreementbetweenTheIrvineCompany,LLC,aCalifornialimitedliability
companyandtheCityofCupertino,amunicipalcorporationagreeingtoanadvance
contributionof$200,000tobeusedfortheI-280/WolfeRoadInterchangeImprovementProject
andtobecreditedagainstIrvineCompany’s$7,000,000futurecontributionthatiscurrently
contemplatedasaDevelopmentAgreementitemfortheirproposeddevelopmentforthe
Hamptons Apartment Project at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue
1)AuthorizetheCityManagertoexecuteanagreementwiththeIrvineCompany,LLCto
acceptanadvancecontributionof$200,000tobeusedfortheI-280/WolfeRoad
Interchange Project
2)AmendapprovedFY15/16OperatingBudgetbyanadditionalexpenseamountof
$1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget
3)AmendapprovedFY15/16OperatingBudgetbyanadditionalrevenueamountof
$1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™75
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Letter Agreement between The Irvine Company, LLC, a California limited liability
company and the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation agreeing to an advance
contribution of $200,000 to be used for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvement
Project and to be credited against Irvine Company’s $7,000,000 future contribution that
is currently contemplated as a Development Agreement item for their proposed
development for the Hamptons Apartment Project at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue.
Recommended Action
1) Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Irvine Company,
LLC to accept an advance contribution of $200,000 to be used for the I-280/Wolfe
Road Interchange Project.
2) Amend approved FY 15/16 Operating Budget by an additional expense amount
of $1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget.
3) Amend approved FY 15/16 Operating Budget by an additional revenue amount
of $1,200,000 for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project budget.
Background
In anticipation of increasing traffic demands and the need for enhanced multi-modal
connectivity along Wolfe Road across I-280, the VTA is initiating a Project Study
Report/Project Initiation Document (PSR/PID) for the purpose of identifying
alternatives for a new overcrossing of Wolfe Road at I-280. Following completion of the
PSR/PID, a Project Approval/Environmental Document (PAED) will be completed, with
the goal being final Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and ultimately
construction of a new interchange. It is anticipated that the studies and engineering
described above would take approximately 5 years to complete, with construction
beginning around the year 2020.
Discussion
At the November 17, 2015 meeting, City Council approved a funding agreement
between the City of Cupertino and the VTA for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange
Improvement Project. The funding agreement identifies the respective obligations of
76
the City and VTA with regard to the project, and specified an initial developer-funded
City contribution of $1,200,000 for the PID phase of the project. Apple has already
deposited $1,000,000 with the City as part of their Apple Campus 2 Development
Agreement for the purpose of funding the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project. This
amount will be applied towards the $1,200,000 PID phase.
The Irvine Company, LLC will be offering to contribute $7,000,000 as a pro rata fair-
share contribution to the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project as a condition of their
Development Agreement with the City for the proposed Hamptons Apartment Project.
Under the current Letter Agreement, they are agreeing to provide an advance of
$200,000, credited towards the $7,000,000, in order to supplement Apple’s $1,000,000
deposit to allow the PID phase of the project to proceed. The $200,000 is non-
refundable, and is not contingent upon the actual approval or construction of the I-
280/Wolfe Road interchange or approval or construction of the proposed Hamptons
Apartment Project.
Sustainability Impact
N/A
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the City. The developer contributions will reimburse the
City for the total cost of $1,200,000, resulting in zero impact to the general fund. Funds
will be added to Traffic Engineering expense account number 100-88-844 900-XXX and
revenue account number 100-88-844 450-404.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Draft Funding Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements
Project)
77
THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC
690 N. McCarthy Blvd., Suite 100
Milpitas, CA 95035
January 19, 2016
David Brandt, City Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Subject: Letter Agreement between The Irvine Company, LLC, a California limited liability
company and the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation agreeing to an advance contribution
of $200,000 to be used for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange and to be credited against Irvine
Company’s $7,000,000 future contribution for The Hamptons Apartment Project to be constructed
at 19500 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino
Dear David:
This letter constitutes a Letter Agreement between The Irvine Company, LLC, a California limited
liability company (“Irvine Company”) and the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (“City”). Irvine
Company agrees to provide an advance of $200,000 payable to the City, concurrently with the execution
of this letter by the City Manager for the sole and exclusive purpose of contributing to all aspects of the
completion, of the I-280/ Wolfe Road Interchange Project, including any and all studies, design work and
construction of project facilities.
The Irvine Company’s payment represents an advance against the future contribution of $7,000,000 as
Irving Company’s pro rata fair share of the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project. There may be a future
Wolfe Interchange Assessment District and this contribution will be credited towards the $7,000,000 total
contribution by the Irvine Company for this Assessment District for The Hamptons Project for its impacts
upon the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange.
Irvine Company acknowledges that this payment is non-refundable and is not contingent upon the actual
construction of any portion of the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project or of the approval or
construction of The Hamptons Apartment Project. City agrees that the sum of $200,000 is to be used for
studies or other costs including staff time related to the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project. These
funds will not be refunded should the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project not proceed for any reason as
long as the funds were expended related to that future project.
In the event that the Hamptons Apartment Project, in the future, is redeveloped to include other uses, or
the use is changed, or is expanded beyond the size of the current proposed project, City may seek
78
David Brandt, City Manager
City of Cupertino
January 19, 2016
Page 2
,
additional payments as mitigation for impacts which arise only for the expansion or change in use of the
property and not for the costs of mitigation of impacts for the current proposed development.
Very truly yours,
The Irvine Company, a California limited liability company
By: ________________________
Authorized Officer
The terms of this Letter Agreement are agreed to by the City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino
By:______________________,
David Brandt, City Manager
Letter Agreement The Irvine Company I—280 Wolfe Interchange Payment advance (2)1-8-16
79
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1357 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/12/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Bubb, Elm & McClellan Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project - Increase
Contingency Authorization
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:Bubb,Elm&McClellanStormDrain/SanitarySewerImprovementProject-Increase
Contingency Authorization
Authorizeanincreaseintheconstructioncontingencyamountbyanadditional$32,000with
funds from the current appropriated project budget
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™80
1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Bubb, Elm & McClellan Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project – Increase
Contingency Authorization
Recommended Action
Authorize an increase in the construction contingency amount by an additional $32,000
with funds from the current appropriated project budget.
Discussion
On May 19, 2015, the City Council authorized the award of the Bubb, Elm & McClellan
Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project contract to Con-Quest Contractors
Inc., in the amount of $1,456,941. Council also approved a construction contingency of
$250,000, for a total authorized expenditure amount of $1,706,941 for the contract. The
scope of work for this project included both storm drain and sanitary sewer
improvements. The cost sharing agreement between the City and Cupertino Sanitary
District (CuSD) was authorized by Council on April 21, 2015. Per that agreement, the
City and CuSD pay 100% of their respective costs.
Construction began in June 2015 and was completed in November 2015. Construction
in areas impacting McClellan Road school traffic was completed in advance of the start
of the 2015-16 school year.
Actual costs incurred on the project were as follows:
Agency Bid Amount Actual Completed Cost
City $995,955 $1,342,707
CuSD $460,986 $396,204
Authorized
Contract Amount $1,456,941 $1,456,941.00
Contingency (Change Orders) $ 250,000 $ 281,970.48
Total $1,706,941 $1,738,911.48
Council authorized contingency funding in the amount of $250,000, which is
approximately 17% of the construction contract amount, for unforeseen conditions.
81
2
During the course of construction, the contingency budget was exceeded by $32,000,
which is an additional 2% of the value the contract. Exceptional conditions encountered
during construction included several existing underground utilities in conflict with new
improvements and excavated soil that could not be used as intended as backfill due to
large rock rubble content.
A significant portion of this project was on McClellan Road between Bubb Road and
Highway 85. The construction work on McClellan Road was scheduled to be completed
over the summer prior to the start of the school year to avoid conflicts with school
traffic. A timely request of Council during the course of construction to increase the
contingency authorization would have delayed work on McClellan Road past the start
of the school year. This would have resulted in worsened traffic conditions and
significant construction activity immediately adjacent to school children going to and
from school.
The decision to adjust work in the field as required to accommodate existing conditions,
and to proceed as scheduled without stopping work to seek Council authorization to
increase the contingency budget, was in consideration of the following: 1) to avoid
extending the work beyond the start of the 2015/16 school year and 2) to avoid the
potential additional daily costs that may have been owed to the contractor by the City
due to delay of the project.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
No additional appropriation is needed to cover the increased contingency budget, as
the current appropriation for the Bubb, Elm & McClellan Storm Drain Improvement
Project budget is sufficient. _____________________________________
Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments: None
82
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1397 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/21/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Discontinue headline translations
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Discontinue headline translations
Discontinue headline translations and redirect the funds to other budget priorities
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™83
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Discontinue headline translations
Recommended Action
Discontinue headline translations and redirect the funds to other budget priorities
Description
In November 2001, the City Council asked for and has since been provided translations
of local headlines of the Sing Tao Daily and the World Journal. The clipping service and
headline translations focus on local Cupertino news. The purpose of the service was to
identify articles to be translated in their entirety at the request of Council Members.
Discussion
Due to the nuanced nature of interpretation and translation, the City of Cupertino has
always contracted for professional translations. The budgeted cost for these services has
varied over the years from a high of $7,000 per year to the current funding level of
$5,000 per year. It has been approximately a year since there was a request for the
complete translation of an article.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact
Fiscal Impact
Discontinuing headline clipping and translation services will save approximately $5,000
per year.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Rick Kitson, Public Affairs Director
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
84
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1398 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/21/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Transportation Tax Measure Allocations
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft VTP 2040 Project List 8-19-15
B - CC Resolution No. 15-077 Implementation of Long-Term Mass Transit Solutions Near Highway 85
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Transportation Tax Measure Allocations
ApproveadvocacydirectiontoCityrepresentativesregardingtheproposedSantaClaraCounty
salestax,includinggeneralfundinglevelswithinexpenditurecategories,asdevelopedin
coordination with other North County and West Valley cities
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™85
1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Transportation Tax Measure Allocations.
Recommended Action
Approve advocacy direction to City representatives regarding the proposed Santa Clara
County sales tax, including general funding levels within expenditure categories, as
developed in coordination with other North County and West Valley cities.
Background
The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is actively discussing
the possibility of placing a countywide transportation sales tax measure on the
November 2016 ballot. This tax measure would be focused on enhancing public
transportation systems such as BART and Caltrain, improving pavement maintenance,
highways, and expressways, and improving active transportation alternatives for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Historically, countywide transportation sales tax measures in California have often
employed a strategy of combining a list of specific, major regional projects to be funded
with separate program categories within which smaller-scale projects (such as street
repaving) would be subsequently identified and funded. Projects of significant local
importance (such as Wolfe/280 Interchange improvements) could also come from a
crossover category in which the tax measure designates a funding level and specific
projects are subsequently selected based on certain criteria.
VTA has undertaken “Envision Silicon Valley,” a campaign aimed at engaging
community leaders in discussion of current and future transportation needs, identifying
solutions and developing funding priorities. Projects identified would be carried
86
2
forward into the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area documents.
The proposed transportation sales tax measure would provide a county-level source of
transportation funds to supplement regional, state, and federal funds along with direct
funding from local agencies.
In August, the County of Santa Clara, cities, and transit agencies submitted projects for
consideration as part of the VTP 2040 process. An estimated $40 billion in projects and
programs were submitted for an estimated $20 billion in potential funding (including
future grant funds as well as the sales tax funding).
On August 18, 2015, the City Council provided direction regarding the City’s response
to VTA’s “call for projects” for VTP 2040. As this list of projects is the basis for
discussion of a 2016 countywide transportation sales tax, the City Council directed staff
to include the attached list of projects and program enhancements (Attachment A),
highlighted by the following:
1) Implementation of long-term mass transit solutions to serve major employment
centers along and near the highway 85 corridor (Adopted Resolution No. 15-077,
Attachment B);
2) Highway 280/Wolfe Road Interchange and Overcrossing Replacement;
3) Foothill and Lawrence Expressway Improvements, as adopted by Expressway
Policy Board;
3) Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation;
4) Shuttle Service for Bubb/McClellan/Rainbow and Homestead/Foothill/Stevens
Creek/Wolfe areas
Discussion
VTA staff is currently discussing funding concepts, and it is expected that an initial
proposal for the tax measure will be developed by VTA in early 2016. Based on
discussions among stakeholders, it appears at this time that the following projects and
87
3
programs are likely to be considered for the tax measure (likely a 30-year, 1⁄2 cent sales
tax that would generate about $6 billion over the life of the tax measure):
1) The BART Phase 2 extension to San Jose (and possibly to Santa Clara);
2) Increased capacity for Caltrain including longer trains, station and platform
enhancements, and money for grade separations;
3) Expressway improvements based on the current County Expressway
Plan with priorities including upgrades to the Foothill and Lawrence Expressways;
4) Key freeway improvement projects including express lanes and interchange
upgrades such as the Route 280/Wolfe Road Interchange;
5) Local street and road pavement maintenance allocations with a possible provision to
un-encumber local funds if an adequate pavement maintenance level is achieved;
6) Transportation improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians; and
7) Transit service improvements for seniors and people with disabilities.
Public and agency review regarding the proposed sales tax measure is expected to
begin in February, with final adoption of the measure by August. The Envision Silicon
Valley process will include formal review of the proposed measure by the following
VTA boards and committees:
1) The VTA Board and Envision Silicon Valley Ad-Hoc Committee (Los Altos Mayor
Jeannie Bruins represents the North County cities and Campbell Mayor Jason Baker
represents West Valley cities);
2) The VTA Policy Advisory Committee (Councilmember Vaidhyanathan represents
Cupertino);
3) The VTA Technical Advisory Committee (Public Works Director Timm Borden
represents Cupertino);
4) Envision Silicon Valley stakeholder committees, including community interest
groups and transportation advocacy groups.
88
4
Additionally, potential advocacy for the composition of the measure could come from
key employers (individually or through the Silicon Valley Leadership Group),
community and environmental groups, and/or a possible coalition of West Valley and
North County cities.
On January 8, 2016, staff attended a meeting of representatives from several North
County and West Valley cities. At this meeting, a conceptual allocation of county sales
tax funding levels and expenditure categories was discussed. This concept was
developed from various discussions among agency representatives, elected officials,
actions taken by governing bodies, and VTA meetings.
After discussion and some edits to the working draft, consensus was reached that each
city representative should return their City Council and request approval to advocate
for this conceptual funding allocation. The intent is to solidify the collective cities’
position and more effectively advocate for specific funding levels and uses as the sales
tax measure moves forward. VTA is expected to begin to finalize the county sales tax
funding levels, expenditure categories and projects in February 2016.
The recommended advocacy position is as follows:
Expenditure Category Proposed Allocation
(in millions)
Proposed Allocation
(Percent-rounded)
Bart to San Jose 1,200 20
Caltrain Improvements 400 7
Railroad Grade Separation Program 900 15
Congestion Relief/Transit/Mode
Shift
500 8
Expressways 1,000 17
Streets and Highways 500 8
Local Streets and Roads (formula
program with flexibility to focus on
maintenance or local needs)
1,000 17
Bicycle/Pedestrian 500 8
Fiscal Impact
None.
89
5
Sustainability Impact
Any future projects that enhance non-vehicular transportation modes or reduce
congestion will have positive effects on greenhouse gas emissions.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft VTP 2040 Project List 8-19-15
B – Resolution for Regional Mass Transit 8-19-15
90
Attachment A
City of Cupertino – VTP 2040 Project Submittal List
August 18, 2015
Future Mass Transit Corridors Implementation for West Valley cities and North
County cities
Caltrain Capacity Expansion – Santa Clara County Portion
Comprehensive systems study and for future mass transit in Santa Clara County
with connections to other counties, include first/last mile strategies
Wolfe Road Overcrossing at Highway 280
Lawrence Expressway Improvements (from Expressway Policy Board)
Foothill Expressway Improvements (from Expressway Policy Board)
I-280 Northbound Braided Ramps between Foothill Expwy . and SR 85
Saratoga Creek Trail extension between Lawrence Exp. and Mitty Avenue
Stevens Creek Trail grade-separated crossing of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Bike/Ped bridge crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks at the Snyder-
Hammond House
UPRR Rails to Trails Improvements
McClellan Road Bridge Replacement at McClellan Ranch Preserve driveway
Stevens Creek Canyon Widening and Bike/Ped Improvements – Miramonte
Road south to City limits
Southbound Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane and Sidewalk Improvements –
Stevens Creek Boulevard to just south of Rancho Ventura Street
Mary Avenue Complete Street Conversion
Bicycle Transportation Plan Priority Class 1 Bicycle Facility Project
Transit stop enhancements (shelters, real-time information)
Miscellaneous traffic signal upgrades
Citywide ADA curb ramp improvements
Citywide sidewalk gap closures
Stelling Road Complete Street study and implementation
Stevens Creek Blvd bridge over Stevens Creek replacement
Stevens Creek trail grade separation at Stevens Creek Blvd
Stevens Creek trail completion
Citywide signal retiming and coordination
De Anza Blvd Advanced Traffic Management System
Traffic monitoring camera expansion
Citywide ADA pedestrian signal upgrades
Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
Bubb/McClellan/Rainbow bus/shuttle service
Homestead/Foothill/Stevens Creek/Wolfe bus/shuttle service
91
RESOLUTION NO. 15-077
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
SUPPORTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM MASS TRANSIT
SOLUTIONS TO SERVE MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
ALONG AND NEAR THE HIGHWAY 85 CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, many cities in the West Valley and the North County area desire a new, long-
range transportation vision for the entire region, thinking beyond the car; and
WHEREAS, the vision shall focus on mass transit improvements to reduce/ replace single-
occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips; and
WHEREAS, the vision recognize the evolution of where jobs are located in relation to where
people live; and
WHEREAS, the new transportation vision shall include a sustainable, financially viable mass
transit solution that services housing and employers along and near the Highway 85 corridor
from San Jose to Mountain View; and
WHEREAS, the new transportation vision shall include infrastructure and facilities that
support the system, such as "last-mile" shuttle (private or public) or bicycle/pedestrian
corridors between stations and employers, as well as transit center(s) to facilitate a robust
shuttle network; and
WHEREAS, the vision shall identify transit center locations near mass transit system as
connection for last-mile services; and
WHEREAS, the vision shall improve connections to other inter-county mass transit systems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino City Council was
presented with all of the information described in the recitals and has considered this
information in adopting this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino City Council determines that this
proposal for near-term and long-term regional mass transit is in the best interest of the City;
and
92
Resolution No. 15-077
MASS TRANSIT PROPOSAL FOR INCLUSION IN
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2040
Exhibit A
Proposed Project Name/Title: Future Mass Transit Needs for Santa Clara County.
Proposed Project Description: Develop, finance and construct a mass transit system to serve
job centers along and near the Highway 85 Corridor. The
project would:
Project Cost:
• Focus on mass transit improvements to reduce/replace single-
occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips.
• Recognize where jobs are located in relation to where people live.
• Include a mode with an exclusive guideway.
• Develop plans for effective last-mile connections from transit
corridors to major employment areas. Connection modes should
include public and private shuttles and highly developed and
accessible bicycle and pedestrian links.
• Identify transit center locations near the mass transit system as
connection for last-mile services.
• Improve connections to other inter-county mass transit systems.
• Anticipate/ incorporate new and emerging transportation
technologies as mass transit alternatives.
Estimated $800 Million which would include design, environmental
clearance, as well as the local match to support full construction of a
project which would serve the mass transit needs of the region,
with an initial phase on the Highway 85 corridor from Highway 87
to immediately north of Highway 101.
3
94
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:115-1238 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/19/2015 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code to prohibit marijuana
cultivation, dispensaries, and deliveries and commercial cannabis activities within the City of
Cupertino. (Application No. MCA-2015-01; Location: City-wide; Applicant: City of Cupertino)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:SecondReadingofOrdinanceamendingtheCupertinoMunicipalCodetoprohibit
marijuanacultivation,dispensaries,anddeliveriesandcommercialcannabisactivitieswithin
theCityofCupertino.(ApplicationNo.MCA-2015-01;Location:City-wide;Applicant:Cityof
Cupertino)
ConductthesecondreadingandadoptOrdinanceNo.16-2140:“AnOrdinanceoftheCity
CounciloftheCityofCupertinoAmendingSection19.08.030andaddingChapter19.98of
Title19oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeRegardingMedicalMarijuanaDispensaries,
MarijuanaCultivationFacilities,CommercialCannabisActivities,andMedicalMarijuana
Deliveries”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™95
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Second Reading of Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code to prohibit
marijuana cultivation, dispensaries, and deliveries and commercial cannabis activities
within the City of Cupertino. (Application No. MCA-2015-01; Location: City-wide;
Applicant: City of Cupertino)
Recommended Action
That the City Council conduct the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 16-2140,
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 19.08.030
and adding Chapter 19.98 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Marijuana Cultivation Facilities, Commercial
Cannabis Activities, and Medical Marijuana Deliveries” (Attachment A)
Discussion
On January 19, 2016, the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading of
Ordinance No. 16-2140, amending Chapter 19.08.030 and adding Chapter 19.98 to Title
19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries,
marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and medical marijuana
deliveries with no changes to the proposed Ordinance.
The City Council did not make any amendments to the proposed Ordinance at the first
reading. Therefore, the final Ordinance is presented for the second reading and
adoption.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
96
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Adam Petersen, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance No. 16-2140
97
Revision date November 18, 2015
ORDINANCE NO. ______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING SECTION 19.08.030 AND ADDING CHAPTER 19.98 OF TITLE 19 OF
THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES, MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL
CANNABIS ACTIVITIES, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA DELIVERIES
WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA )
which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess
or use marijuana in the United States.; and
WHEREAS, in 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled
Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which
established the state’s prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession,
cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition
215 (the "CUA;" Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, California courts have held that the CUA created a limited exception
from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for
specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited,
specified circumstances; and
WHEREAS, On January 1, 2004, the state Legislature enacted "Medical
Marijuana Program" (MMP), codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 to
11362.83, to clarify the scope of the CUA, establish a voluntary program for
identification cards issued by counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers,
and provide criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain
activities involving medical marijuana, including the collective or cooperative
cultivation of medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in City of Riverside
v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, that the
CUA and the MMP do not preempt local ordinances that completely and permanently
ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and cooperatives; and
98
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, in Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, the Third
District Court of Appeal held, based on Inland Empire, that there was no right to
cultivate medical marijuana and that a city could implement and enforce a complete
ban on this activity, including a ban on personal cultivation; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bills 243 and
266 and Senate Bill 643, which taken together create a broad state regulatory and
licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical
marijuana, the manufacturing of marijuana products, and physician recommendations
for medical marijuana, and provide immunity to marijuana businesses operating with
both a state license and a local permit; and
WHEREAS, while the new legislation expressly preserves local control over
medical marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit all
medical marijuana businesses and cultivation completely, newly-added Health & Safety
Code section 11362.777(c)(4) provides that if a city does not have a land use regulation
or ordinance regulating or prohibiting marijuana cultivation, either expressly or
otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a
conditional permit program under that section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the
state Department of Food and Agriculture will become the sole licensing authority for
marijuana cultivation in that jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, under newly-added Business and Professions Code section 19340(a),
if a city wants to prevent medical marijuana deliveries within its jurisdiction, it must
adopt an ordinance expressly prohibiting them; and
WHEREAS, medical marijuana businesses, dispensaries, cultivation activities,
and deliveries are not listed in the Zoning Code as either permitted or conditionally-
permitted land uses and are, therefore, prohibited under the City’s permissive zoning
provisions, as set forth in Municipal Code sections 19.04.030 and 19.04.050 (City of
Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 431-433); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that express Municipal Code
provision regarding medical marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities,
commercial cannabis activities, and medical marijuana deliveries will benefit the public
by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize
the potential for confusion regarding the City’s policies, and
WHEREAS, many California communities have experienced adverse impacts
and negative secondary effects from medical marijuana establishments and cultivation
99
Ordinance No.
Page 3
sites, including hazardous construction, unsafe electrical wiring, noxious odors and
fumes affecting neighboring properties and businesses, increased crime in and around
such land uses, and the diversion of medical marijuana to minors; and
WHEREAS, there is significant evidence that medical marijuana delivery
services are also targets of violent crime and pose a danger to the public; and,
WHEREAS, a California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports,
news stories, and statistical research regarding crimes involving medical marijuana
businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white
paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council for
purposes of its analysis of crime and secondary impacts and on file with the City Clerk;
and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office issued a May 2014
memorandum entitled “Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County,” which
outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a
copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council
with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the staff report presented to the City Council identifies other
negative impacts from unregulated marijuana which are incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable to conclude that medical marijuana dispensaries,
marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and medical marijuana
deliveries could cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare
in Cupertino; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City
Council desires to add Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.98 to prohibit, in express
terms, medical marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial
cannabis activities, and medical marijuana deliveries; and
WHEREAS, the State regulation and licensing as contemplated in Assembly Bills
243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 have not yet taken effect nor been implemented, and the
City Council desires to preserve local control over these uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making
body for this Ordinance; and
100
Ordinance No.
Page 4
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of
section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines
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 significan t
effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the not a project and
exemption determination under the California Environmental Quality Act prior to
taking any approval actions on this Ordinance and approves such determinations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030C of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19
is amended by adding the following definitions placed into alphabetical order:
“Commercial cannabis activity” shall have the meaning set forth in California Business
and Professions Code section 19300.5(k).
“Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana.
SECTION 2. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030I of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19
is amended by adding the following definition placed into alphabetical order:
“Identification Card” shall have the same meaning as set forth in state law, including
Health and Safety Code Sections 11352.5, 11362.7, and following, or as may be
amended.
SECTION 3. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030M of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19
is amended by adding the following definitions placed into alphabetical order:
"Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds
thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It
includes marijuana infused in foodstuff, and concentrated cannabis and the separated
resin, whether crude or petrified, obtained from marijuana. It does not include the
mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the
101
Ordinance No.
Page 5
seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of the mature stalks (except resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or
the sterilized seeds of the plant that are incapable of germination.
"Medical marijuana" is marijuana used for medical purposes where that medical use is
deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined
that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS"), anorexia, arthritis, cancer, chronic
pain, glaucoma, migraine, spasticity, or any other serious medical condition for which
marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in subsection (h) of Health and Safety
Code § 11362.7.
“Marijuana cultivation facility” means any business, facility, use, establishment,
property, or location where the cultivation of marijuana occurs. A “marijuana
cultivation facility” does not include a “qualified patient’s” primary residence provided
such cultivation of medical marijuana is for his or her personal use.
"Medical marijuana dispensary" means any business, facility, use, establishment,
property, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is sold, made
available, delivered, transported, and/or distributed. A "medical marijuana dispensary"
does not include the following uses:
a. A “qualified patient” transporting “medical marijuana” for his or her personal
use;
b. A “primary caregiver” delivering or transporting “medical marijuana” to a
“qualified patient;”
c. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety
Code;
d. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health
and Safety Code;
e. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness
licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code;
f. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of
Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; or
g. A residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of
Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.
SECTION 4. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030P of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19
is amended by adding the following definition placed into alphabetical order:
102
Ordinance No.
Page 6
“Primary caregiver” shall have the same meaning as set forth in state law, including
Health and Safety Code Sections 11352.5, 11362.7, and following, or as may be
amended.
SECTION 5. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030Q of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19
is amended by adding the following definition placed into alphabetical order:
“Qualified patient” shall have the same meaning as set forth in state law, including
Health and Safety Code Sections 11352.5, 11362.7, and following, or as may be
amended.
SECTION 6. Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
Chapter 19.98 to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows:
CHAPTER 19.98 Medical Marijuana
19.98.010 Purpose
19.98.020 Prohibitions
19.98.030 Enforcement
19.98.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to prohibit medical
marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, medical marijuana deliveries,
and commercial cannabis activities, as defined in Chapter 19.08, Definitions, within the
city limits. It is recognized that it is a Federal violation under the Controlled Substances
Act to possess or distribute marijuana even if for medical purposes. Additionally, there
is evidence of an increased incidence of crime-related secondary impacts in locations
associated with marijuana cultivation facilities and medical marijuana dispensaries and
in connection with medical marijuana deliveries, which is detrimental to the public’s
health, safety, and welfare. The State of California’s licensing and regulation as
contemplated by Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 have not yet taken
effect nor been implemented, and the City Council desires to preserve local control over
these uses and activities. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to circumvent compliance
with state law.
19.98.020 Prohibitions.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones in the city and shall not be
established or operated anywhere in the city.
103
Ordinance No.
Page 7
(2) Marijuana cultivation facilities in all zones in the city and shall not be
established or operated anywhere in the city.
(3) Commercial cannabis activities in all zones in the city and shall not be
established or operated anywhere in the city.
(b) No person shall own, establish, open, operate, conduct, or manage a medical
marijuana dispensary, marijuana cultivation facility, or commercial cannabis activity
in the city, or be the lessor of property where a medical marijuana dispensary,
marijuana cultivation facility, or commercial cannabis activity is located. No person
shall participate as an employee, contractor, agent, volunteer, or in any manner or
capacity in any medical marijuana dispensary, marijuana cultivation facility, or
commercial cannabis activity in the city.
(c) No Permits, grading permit, building permit, building plans, zone change,
business license, certificate of occupancy or other applicable approval will be
accepted, reviewed, approved or issued for the establishment or operation of a
marijuana cultivation facility, medical marijuana dispensary, or commercial
cannabis activity.
(d) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to permit or authorize any
use or activity which is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law.
19.98.030 Enforcement. The city may enforce this section in any manner permitted by
law. The violation of this Chapter shall be and is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance and shall, at the discretion of the city, create a cause of action for injunctive
relief.
SECTION 7. FINDINGS. The following findings are made under Cupertino
Municipal Code section 19.152.030(D):
(1) The proposed Ordinance conforms with the latest adopted general plan for the
City in that a prohibition against marijuana cultivation facilities, medical marijuana
dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities, and medical marijuana delivery
services does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does
not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the general plan.
(2) The proposed Ordinance will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and
promote the orderly development of the City in that prohibiting marijuana
104
Ordinance No.
Page 8
cultivation facilities, medical marijuana dispensaries, commercial cannabis activities,
and medical marijuana delivery services will protect the City from the adverse
impacts and negative secondary effects connected with these activities.
(3) The proposed Ordinance is consistent with Municipal Code Title 19, which
currently bans marijuana cultivation facilities, medical marijuana dispensaries,
commercial cannabis activities, and medical marijuana delivery services under
principles of permissive zoning.
(4) The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines 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.
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give
notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933,
a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and
posting of the entire text.
105
Ordinance No.
Page 9
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
the 19th day of January, 2016 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino the ____ of _______ 2016, by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_______________________ ___________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
106
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:115-1280 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/15/2015 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: An ordinance amending Sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the Cupertino municipal code
to provide for a limited waiver of reimbursement requirements when a property owner dedicates right-
of-way for a city street improvement or facility project.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance
B - Redline Version of Draft Ordinance
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:AnordinanceamendingSections14.04.100and18.56.040oftheCupertinomunicipal
codetoprovideforalimitedwaiverofreimbursementrequirementswhenapropertyowner
dedicates right-of-way for a city street improvement or facility project.
ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.16-2141:“AnOrdinanceoftheCity
CounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingSections14.04.100and18.56.040oftheCupertino
MunicipalCodetoprovideforalimitedwaiverofreimbursementrequirementswhena
propertyownerdedicatesright-of-wayforacitystreetimprovementorfacilityproject,”withan
amendmentdirectedbytheCityCouncilduringthefirstreadingoftheordinanceamendment
onJanuary19,2016toincludeaprovisionintheordinancelanguagesuchthatthecitycouncil
determinesthepercentofawaivertoofferforrightofwayacquisitionforindividualprojects
astheyareapprovedduringtheCIPbudgetprocess,tofacilitatetheprovisionofsidewalksand
street widening in certain areas where pedestrians and bicyclists are prevalent
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™107
1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
An ordinance amending sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the Cupertino municipal
code to provide for a limited waiver of reimbursement requirements when a property
owner dedicates right-of-way for a city street improvement or facility project.
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact the draft ordinance: “An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending sections 14.04.100 and 18.56.040 of the
Cupertino municipal code to provide for a limited waiver of reimbursement
requirements when a property owner dedicates right-of-way for a city street
improvement or facility project,” with an amendment directed by the City Council
during the first reading of the ordinance amendment on January 19, 2016 to include a
provision in the ordinance language such that the city council determines the percent of
a waiver to offer for right of way acquisition for individual projects as they are
approved during the CIP budget process, to facilitate the provision of sidewalks and
street widening in certain areas where pedestrians and bicyclists are prevalent.
Discussion
Currently, almost all construction of new curb, gutter and sidewalk is achieved as
standard requirements of new development. Especially in residential neighborhoods,
this typically results in a slow, piecemeal buildout of the sidewalk network, leaving
gaps where pedestrians walk from a short piece of sidewalk back into the street or dirt,
and then back on another short piece of sidewalk. Bicyclists are also more constricted in
the locations where the street widening has not occurred. While this situation exists in
several areas of the City, it is very clearly illustrated in the school walking routes in the
Monta Vista neighborhood just north of McClellan Road.
The subject sections of the municipal code provide that if the City or another property
owner installs street improvements that benefit a property, the owner of the benefitted
property is required to reimburse the City or the property owner for its reasonable
share of the costs of such improvements when they seek a land use permit from the
City. Section 18.56.040 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code imposes a similar
reimbursement requirement for street facilities in connection with subdivision maps.
108
2
There has been a strong desire to improve the walkability of routes to schools;
particularly those areas lacking curb, gutter and sidewalk. Because the subject
municipal code sections require property owners developing a property through
subdivision, or increasing their residential square footage by over 25% reimburse the
City for any costs advanced for these improvements, property owners are typically
hesitant to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the widening. In order to incent the
dedication of land necessary to improve such routes, prior to an owner’s application for
a land use permit or subdivision map, this code amendment would provide a limited
waiver of future reimbursement charges in exchange for an owner’s dedication of land,
at no cost, in connection with the City’s commencement of a street improvement
project.
With the first reading of the ordinance on January 19, 2016, Council directed to amend
the ordinance at the second reading to include a provision in the ordinance language
such that the City Council determines the percent of a waiver to offer for right of way
acquisition for individual projects as they are approved during the CIP budget process.
Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact resulting from this amendment.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact resulting from this amendment. If, in the future, the City
budgets a capital improvement project to improve certain streets with curb, gutter and
sidewalk, there would be no future reimbursement expected from property owners if in
advance of the project they enter into a limited waiver agreement with the City and
dedicate their street frontage property at no cost to the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Ordinance
B – Redline Version of Draft Ordinance
109
1
ORDINANCE NO. 16-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTIONS 14.04.100 AND 18.56.040 OF
THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A
LIMITED WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN
A PROPERTY OWNER DEDICATES RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A CITY
STREET IMPROVEMENT OR FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, Section 14.04.110 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code provides
that if the City or another property owner installs street improvements that benefit a
property, the owner of the benefitted property is required to reimburse the City or the
property owner for its reasonable share of the costs of such improvements when the
benefitted property owner seeks a land use permit from City; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.56.040 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code imposes a
similar reimbursement requirement for street facilities in connection with subdivision
maps; and
WHEREAS, City would like to improve the walkability of routes to schools,
particularly those areas lacking curb, gutter and sidewalk; and
WHEREAS, in order to incentivize the dedication of land necessary to improve
such routes, prior to an owner’s application for a land use permit or subdivision map,
the City desires to provide a limited waiver of future reimbursement charges in
exchange for an owner’s dedication of land to City , at no cost, in connection with the
City’s commencement of a street improvement project; and
WHEREAS, The City Council is the decision making body for this Ordinance
and, before taking action on this Ordinance, hereby finds that the amendments are
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3): General Rule Exemption, since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment. The
amendments, which allow the dedication of right-of-way by property owners in certain
circumstances in consideration of a limited waiver of future reimbursement charges,
address only the procedures by which the dedication and waiver would be allowed.
Any proposed street improvement or facilities project would be subject to subsequent
project-specific CEQA review; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
110
2
Section 1. Section 14.04.110 of Chapter 14.04 of Title 14 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, Improvements Installed Prior to Permit-Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest, is hereby amended
by adding subsection (D) to read as follows:
14.04.110 Improvements Installed Prior to Permit–Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest.
A. In some instances, the public welfare, safety and economy can be best served by
the installation of improvements on unimproved streets prior to the time that an
adjoining property owner seeks a permit. Since such adjoining property benefits from
the street improvements, the owners of such property are required to contribute their
share of the cost of those street improvements (just as permittees who seek a permit
prior to the installation of improvements are required to do) when they seek a building
permit unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 14.04.230(D) of this chapter, a planned
development permit, use permit, or a site and architectural approval.
B. Where street improvements have been installed by the City, or by another
property owner, without cost to the adjoining property owner, the adjoining property
owner, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit or any entitlement to use for
his/her property, shall pay the City for the cost of the land at the cost to the City, or
another property owner, and shall pay a street improvement reimbursement charge for
the improvements which the City, or another property owner, installed on the streets
abutting or included in the benefitted property, in an amount equal to the total
improvement costs for each particular benefitted property as set forth in the
reimbursement agreement. Payments for both land and improvements shall include
simple interest in the amount of seven percent per year, to be calculated in the
following manner:
1. Land Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street improvements are accepted
by the City to the date the street improvement reimbursement charge is paid, or if the
land is purchased by the City for a City project, from the date of purchase to the date
the charge is paid;
2. Improvement Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street improvements are
accepted by the City to the date the street improvement reimbursement charge is paid,
or if installed by the City, from the date installation commenced to the date the charge is
paid.
C. Provided, however, that the interest shall be waived if the adjoining property
owner dedicates or has dedicated to the City land necessary for the street
improvements, or where no such dedication is necessary.
111
3
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, if, upon request by the City in
connection with the City’s commencement of a street improvement project, a property
owner dedicates to the City land necessary for such street improvement project at no
cost to City, the City’s Director of Public Works, on behalf of the City, may provide a
limited waiver of future reimbursement charges for the cost of the street improvements.
The City Council shall provide direction as to the amount or percentage of the waiver
for a particular project either at the time that a Capital Improvement Project for street
improvements is approved, or by separate action. The waiver shall be signed by the
City Manager or his or her designee and shall be in a form as approved by the City
Attorney.
SECTION 2 . Section 18.56.040 of Chapter 18.56 of Title 18 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code, Imposition of Street Facility Reimbursement Charges, Cost
of Land and Interest upon Benefitted Properties, is hereby amended by adding
subsection (C) to read as follows:
18.56.040 Imposition of Street Facility Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land
and Interest upon Benefitted Properties
A. Where street facilities have been installed by the City or the initial developer
without cost to the benefitted property owner, the benefitted property owner, as a
condition precedent to obtaining a final map, a final parcel map or a conditional
certificate of compliance, shall pay the City for the cost of the land at the cost to the City
or to the initial developer, and shall pay a street facility reimbursement charge for the
facilities which the City or the initial developer installed on the streets abutting or on
the benefitted property in an amount equal to such benefitted property owner's share of
the total cost of the street facilities as set forth in the reimbursement agreement.
Payment for both land and facilities shall include simple interest in the amount of
seven percent per year, to be calculated in the following manner:
1. Land Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street facilities are accepted by the
City to the date the street facility reimbursement charge is paid, or if the land is
purchased by the City for a City project, from the date of purchase to the date the
charge is paid.
2. Street Facility Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street facilities are
accepted by the City to the date the street facility reimbursement charge is paid, or if
installed by the City, from the date installation commenced to the date the charge is
paid.
112
4
B. Provided, however, that the interest shall be waived if the benefitted property
owner dedicates or has dedicated to the City land necessary for the street facilities, or
where no such dedication is necessary.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, if, upon request by the City in
connection with the City’s commencement of a street improvement project, a property
owner dedicates to the City land necessary for such street improvement project at no
cost to City, the City’s Director of Public Works, on behalf of the City, may provide a
limited waiver of future reimbursement charges for the cost of the street improvements.
The Council shall provide direction as to the amount or percentage of the waiver for a
particular project either at the time that a Capital Improvement Project for street
improvements is approved, or by separate action. The waiver shall be signed by the
City Manager or his or her designee and shall be in a form as approved by the City
Attorney.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of
publication and posting of the entire text.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its
adoption.
INTRODUCED at a meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 19th day of January,
2016, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 2nd
day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang
Mayor, City of Cupertino
113
1
ORDINANCE NO. 16-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTIONS 14.04.100 AND 18.56.040 OF
THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A
LIMITED WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN
A PROPERTY OWNER DEDICATES RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A CITY
STREET IMPROVEMENT OR FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, Section 14.04.110 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code provides
that if the City or another property owner installs street improvements that benefit a
property, the owner of the benefitted property is required to reimburse the City or the
property owner for its reasonable share of the costs of such improvements when the
benefitted property owner seeks a land use permit from City; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.56.040 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code imposes a
similar reimbursement requirement for street facilities in connection with subdivision
maps; and
WHEREAS, City would like to improve the walkability of routes to schools,
particularly those areas lacking curb, gutter and sidewalk; and
WHEREAS, in order to incentivize the dedication of land necessary to improve
such routes, prior to an owner’s application for a land use permit or subdivision map,
the City desires to provide a limited waiver of future reimbursement charges in
exchange for an owner’s dedication of land to City, at no cost, in connection with the
City’s commencement of a street improvement project; and
WHEREAS, The City Council is the decision making body for this Ordinance
and, before taking action on this Ordinance, hereby finds that the amendments are
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3): General Rule Exemption, since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity would have a significant effect on the environment. The
amendments, which allow the dedication of right-of-way by property owners in certain
circumstances in consideration of a limited waiver of future reimbursement charges,
address only the procedures by which the dedication and waiver would be allowed.
Any proposed street improvement or facilities project would be subject to subsequent
project-specific CEQA review; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
114
2
Section 1. Section 14.04.110 of Chapter 14.04 of Title 14 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, Improvements Installed Prior to Permit-Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest, is hereby amended
by adding subsection (D) to read as follows:
14.04.110 Improvements Installed Prior to Permit–Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest.
A. In some instances, the public welfare, safety and economy can be best served by
the installation of improvements on unimproved streets prior to the time that an
adjoining property owner seeks a permit. Since such adjoining property benefits from
the street improvements, the owners of such property are required to contribute their
share of the cost of those street improvements (just as permittees who seek a permit
prior to the installation of improvements are required to do) when they seek a building
permit unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 14.04.230(D) of this chapter, a planned
development permit, use permit, or a site and architectural approval.
B. Where street improvements have been installed by the City, or by another
property owner, without cost to the adjoining property owner, the adjoining property
owner, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit or any entitlement to use for
his/her property, shall pay the City for the cost of the land at the cost to the City, or
another property owner, and shall pay a street improvement reimbursement charge for
the improvements which the City, or another property owner, installed on the streets
abutting or included in the benefitted property, in an amount equal to the total
improvement costs for each particular benefitted property as set forth in the
reimbursement agreement. Payments for both land and improvements shall include
simple interest in the amount of seven percent per year, to be calculated in the
following manner:
1. Land Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street improvements are accepted
by the City to the date the street improvement reimbursement charge is paid, or if the
land is purchased by the City for a City project, from the date of purchase to the date
the charge is paid;
2. Improvement Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street improvements are
accepted by the City to the date the street improvement reimbursement charge is paid,
or if installed by the City, from the date installation commenced to the date the charge is
paid.
C. Provided, however, that the interest shall be waived if the adjoining property
owner dedicates or has dedicated to the City land necessary for the street
improvements, or where no such dedication is necessary.
115
3
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, if, upon request by the City in
connection with the City’s commencement of a street improvement project, a property
owner dedicates to the City land necessary for such street improvement project at no
cost to City, the City’s Director of Public Works, on behalf of the City, may provide a
limited waiver of future reimbursement charges for the cost of the street improvements.
The City Council shall provide direction as to the amount or percentage of the waiver
for a particular project either at the time that a Capital Improvement Project for street
improvements is approved, or by separate action. The waiver shall be signed by the
City Manager or his or her designee and shall be in a form as approved by the City
Attorney.
SECTION 2 . Section 18.56.040 of Chapter 18.56 of Title 18 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code, Imposition of Street Facility Reimbursement Charges, Cost
of Land and Interest upon Benefitted Properties, is hereby amended by adding
subsection (C) to read as follows:
18.56.040 Imposition of Street Facility Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land
and Interest upon Benefitted Properties
A. Where street facilities have been installed by the City or the initial developer
without cost to the benefitted property owner, the benefitted property owner, as a
condition precedent to obtaining a final map, a final parcel map or a conditional
certificate of compliance, shall pay the City for the cost of the land at the cost to the City
or to the initial developer, and shall pay a street facility reimbursement charge for the
facilities which the City or the initial developer installed on the streets abutting or on
the benefitted property in an amount equal to such benefitted property owner's share of
the total cost of the street facilities as set forth in the reimbursement agreement.
Payment for both land and facilities shall include simple interest in the amount of
seven percent per year, to be calculated in the following manner:
1. Land Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street facilities are accepted by the
City to the date the street facility reimbursement charge is paid, or if the land is
purchased by the City for a City project, from the date of purchase to the date the
charge is paid.
2. Street Facility Cost. Interest to accrue from the date the street facilities are
accepted by the City to the date the street facility reimbursement charge is paid, or if
installed by the City, from the date installation commenced to the date the charge is
paid.
116
4
B. Provided, however, that the interest shall be waived if the benefitted property
owner dedicates or has dedicated to the City land necessary for the street facilities, or
where no such dedication is necessary.“
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, if, upon request by the City in
connection with the City’s commencement of a street improvement project, a property
owner dedicates to the City land necessary for such street improvement project at no
cost to City, the City’s Director of Public Works, on behalf of the City, may provide a
limited waiver of future reimbursement charges for the cost of the street improvements.
The Council shall provide direction as to the amount or percentage of the waiver for a
particular project either at the time that a Capital Improvement Project for street
improvements is approved, or by separate action. The waiver shall be signed by the
City Manager or his or her designee and shall be in a form as approved by the City
Attorney.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of
publication and posting of the entire text.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its
adoption.
INTRODUCED at a meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 19th day of January,
2016, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 2nd
day of February, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang
Mayor, City of Cupertino
117
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1344 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/11/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Review and consider two development proposals (the Goodyear Tire and Oaks sites)
submitted for consideration by the City Council to authorize the applicants to submit an application for
General Plan Amendments and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application
No.(s): GPAAuth-2015-01 & GPAAuth-2015-02; Applicant: KT Urban, Mark Tersini and De Anza
Ventures (Oaks shopping center); Location: 21255-21755 Stevens Creek Boulevard, 10931 N. De
Anza Boulevard (Goodyear Tire); APN: 326-27-039, -040 and -041; 326-10-058)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution No. 16-013
A.1 - CC Reso No. 15-078: Policy on Authorization of General Plan Amendment applications
B - Goodyear Tire project plans
C - Oaks project plans
D - Correspondence
E1 - Economic Analysis_Hotel_Memo_01_21_16
E2 - Economic Analysis_Oaks_Memo_01.21.16
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject:Reviewandconsidertwodevelopmentproposals(theGoodyearTireandOakssites)
submittedforconsiderationbytheCityCounciltoauthorizetheapplicantstosubmitan
applicationforGeneralPlanAmendmentsandstafftocommenceenvironmentalandproject
review.(ApplicationNo.(s):GPAAuth-2015-01&GPAAuth-2015-02;Applicant:KTUrban,
MarkTersiniandDeAnzaVentures(Oaksshoppingcenter);Location:21255-21755Stevens
CreekBoulevard,10931N.DeAnzaBoulevard(GoodyearTire);APN:326-27-039,-040and-
041; 326-10-058)
StaffrecommendsthattheCityCounciladoptResolutionNo.16-013afterdeterminingwhich
applications are authorized to move forward to apply for General Plan Amendments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™118
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 2, 2016
Subject
Review and consider two development proposals (the Goodyear Tire and Oaks sites)
submitted, for consideration by the City Council to authorize the applicants to submit an
application for General Plan Amendments and staff to commence environmental and
project review. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2015-01 & GPAAuth-2015-02; Applicant: KT
Urban, Mark Tersini and De Anza Ventures (Oaks shopping center); Location: 21255-21755
Stevens Creek Boulevard, 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard (Goodyear Tire); APN: 326-27-039, -
040 and -041; 326-10-058)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 16-013 (Attachment A) after
determining which applications, if any, are authorized to move forward to apply for
General Plan Amendments.
Discussion
Background
On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General
Plan amendments. The new procedures provide the following benefits over the previous
process whereby General Plan amendments were processed as they were received:
Provide ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process;
Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility/service and quality of
life standards for the community;
Provide opportunity for early community input;
Consider impact on staff and other resources.
Pursuant to the new procedures, the City Council will evaluate General Plan Amendment
proposals for authorization as follows (see Attachment A.1 for adopted Council policy):
GPA applications would be considered by the Council twice every year;
119
The Council may allow applications to be re-considered at a continued hearing by the
City Council to submit revisions/additional information within 30 days.
Applications that are rejected would wait for a year before re-applying (i.e. they would
not be allowed to re-apply in the 6 month subsequent cycle).
The deadline to apply for consideration in the 2016 First Cycle by the City Council was
November 16, 2015. The City received two applications for authorization for General Plan
amendments – one for the Goodyear Tire Site and one for the Oaks Site. The Analysis
section below reviews the projects based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the
procedures adopted by the Council.
Analysis
Introduction
1. Goodyear Tire Site
The proposal for redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site is a request for authorization of a
General Plan amendment application which would facilitate development of a new 270-
room, nine-story hotel, approximately 105’ in height, with approximately 5,727 square feet
of conference space and restaurant (See Attachment B.)
The project is located on a 1.29 gross-acre site on the west side of N. De Anza Boulevard
between Hwy 280 and Homestead Road. It currently houses a Goodyear Tire store.
2. The Oaks Shopping Center
The proposal for redevelopment of the Oaks site is a request for authorization of a General
Plan amendment application which would facilitate development of 280,000 square feet,
88-foot tall office building, 200-room, 77-foot tall hotel, 270 residential units (including 40
senior age-restricted market-rate and 30 below-market-rate, senior age-restricted units) and
47,660 square feet of retail, in two 60-foot tall buildings and one 45-foot tall building (See
Attachment C.)
The approximately 8.1 gross-acre site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south,
Mary Avenue to the east and north and Hwy 85 to the west. Currently, the site is occupied
by ~73,056 square feet of commercial uses that include a theater and retail.
120
Evaluation Criteria
Based on the criteria in the policy adopted by the City Council on September 1, 2015, the
projects have been evaluated based on:
General Plan goals achieved by the project:
o Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility – does the project
exhibit superior quality of site layout and project design? Is the project compatible
with the surrounding uses?
o Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base – would the project have positive
or negative one-time and ongoing impacts to the City’s fiscal base?
o Provision of affordable housing – does the project provide or otherwise promote
affordable housing above and beyond typical City requirements?
o Environmental sustainability – to what extent does the project include features
including green building, site design and project operation principles, that promote
environmental sustainability above and beyond the City’s typical requirements?
General Plan amendments requested – number and type of General Plan amendments
requested by the applicant.
Proposed voluntary community amenities – what is the per-square-foot amount of
community amenities offered by the applicant?
Staff time and resources required to process the project – would the amount of staff
time and resources require hiring of staff or consultants to process the project? It
should be noted that applicants would be required to pay the full cost of processing the
project, including staff and consultant time and materials.
Table 1 includes a high-level analysis of how each application addresses these criteria. A
brief discussion of the projects is provided later in this report.
121
TABLE 1: SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Project Site and architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (1)
1. Goodyear
Tire
a. Site and
Architectural
design –
satisfactory but
further review
required for
circulation, site
planning and
landscaping.
b. Neighborhood
compatibility –
generally
compatible in terms
of land use. Height
significantly taller
than surrounding
buildings.
a. Could add another
full service hotel in
Cupertino
b. Transient
Occupancy Tax
Revenue to the city
estimated at
$1.621M net
annually
No additional
benefits in terms of
affordable housing.
a. Green Roof at
Mezzanine level
b. Proposed shuttle
service for guests
c. Project will meet all
other statutorily
required
environmental
sustainability
features
a. Height Increase from
45 feet to 105 feet
b. Hotel allocation: 270
rooms
c. Slope line (setback :
height) reduction
from 1 : 1 to 0.25 : 1
(see discussion later)
a. School resources – none
b. Public open space – none
c. Public Facilities – proposed
complimentary use of
conference facilities for -
Cupertino residents on
weekends. However, program
and specifics have not been
provided.
d. Transportation Facilities – none.
Total - $0/square foot.
0.3FTE (full-time
equivalent) of
staff time and
consultants for
environmental
review, etc.
122
Project Site and architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (1)
2. Oaks a. Site and
Architectural
design –
satisfactory but
needs more
common and
private open space.
Further review
required for
circulation.
b. Neighborhood
compatibility –
office use not
consistent with the
General Plan.
Height is taller than
surrounding
buildings.
Net fiscal impact on
General Fund:
a. Project as proposed:
positive $1.19
million
b. Residential and
Hotel project:
positive $1.0
million
c. Residential and
Office project:
negative $7,000
d. Residential only
project: negative
$85,000
a. 22 very low-
income senior
age-restricted
units
b. 8 low-income
senior age-
restricted units (2)
a. Built with
environmentally
preferable products
with a high-recycled
content, sensitive to
the use of natural
resources.
b. All other statutory
requirements for
project construction
for environmental
sustainability
required including
LEED Silver or
equivalent
certification.
a. Change in Land use
designation:
From Commercial /
Residential
To Commercial /
Office / Residential
b. Office allocation:
280,000 sq. ft.
c. Hotel allocation: 200-
rooms
A voluntary community amenities
package of $4.1 million is
proposed. (3)
Proposed Amenities that qualify as
Voluntary community amenities:
a. School Resources: $1.1 million
(Contribution toward permanent
room facilities)
b. Public Facilities: $1.1 million
(Contribution toward Civic
Center improvements)
c. Open Space: $450,000 towards
park improvements and art
d. Transportation: $1.15 million
(Traffic calming on Mary
Avenue – includes some
required improvements along
Mary Avenue as well); and
$400,000 for a citywide shuttle
program.
Total – $4.1 million or $5.49/ square
foot of office, hotel, retail and
residential development.
0.5FTE of staff
time plus
additional
consultants for
environmental
review, etc.
123
Project Site and architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (1)
Proposed Amenities that do not
qualify (valued at $4.182 million by
applicant)
a. Parcel Tax if condominiums
approved – This is a tax and not
a community amenity ($2 MN
over 20 years). Also, there are
only a limited number of years
left on parcel tax Measures A
and J – not 20 years.
b. Cash contribution for signage
improvements for school routes
– This contribution is to De Anza
College and to not the City
($100,000)
c. 72 parking spaces for De Anza
college students – Unclear where
these are located and what value
it is to the residents of Cupertino
($32,400).
d. Traffic Improvements on
Stevens Creek Blvd – These
would be project requirements
and not additional
improvements ($450,000)
e. Signage for Safe Routes to
124
Project Site and architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (1)
School – Beneficiary identified as
De Anza College and not the
Elementary or High School
Districts or the City ($100,000)
f. Provision of affordable housing
(2) ($1.1 million)
g. Economic Development: Seed
money for City office Incubator
program (currently there is no
such program) ($500,000)
(1) All staff time and resources will be paid for by applicant
(2) Density bonus requested. Results in generation of approximately 70 market rate units above maximum yield on site. Applicant is also requesting additional
incentives and waivers including an increase in the height of all structures on the site above the maximum allowable height, parking reductions, slope line
reductions, setback reductions and reductions in required common open space.
(3) A detailed discussion of the voluntary community amenities is provided in the project overview.
125
Evaluation of Project Proposals:
The following is a high-level evaluation of project proposals related to compliance with
the City’s General Plan.
Goodyear Tire site
Location – 10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Project Description - The proposal for redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site is a
request for authorization of a General Plan amendment application which would
facilitate development of a new 270-room, nine-story hotel, with approximately 5,727
square feet of conference space and restaurant on a 1.23 –acre site.
Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The project is located in the northern portion of the City generally northwest of
intersection of N. De Anza Boulevard and Interstate 280. The site contains an existing
8,323 square feet auto repair center. The site is accessed via two driveways on N. De
Anza Boulevard and provides access for the Homestead Shopping center, and its
loading areas, to the west of it.
126
Surrounding uses include a strip shopping center to the north, the Homestead shopping
center to the northwest, a 96-unit, three-story townhome condo complex to the
southwest, the four-story Cupertino Inn (126 rooms) to the south and the 140-unit,
three-story, Aviare development to the east. Heights of the various buildings range
from one story to four stories at a maximum of 45 feet.
Application Overview
The project site is in the North De Anza Gateway within the Homestead Special Area,
which includes residential, commercial, office and hotel uses along Homestead Road,
between Interstate 280 and the Sunnyvale city limit. The General Plan identifies this
area as a major mixed-use corridor that continues to be a predominantly mixed-use area
with a series of neighborhood commercial centers and multi-family housing. Table 2
contains project data along with General Plan amendments or variances requested
and/or required.
Table 2: Good Year Tire Project Data
Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
General Plan designation Commercial/Residential No change -
Zoning designation P (CG-rg) – Planned
Development ( General
Commercial) with special
development conditions
No change Hotel uses allowed in
CG zoning districts
with a Conditional Use
Permit.
Development allocation
Hotel None available 270 rooms GPA requested.
Commercial 8,323 s.f. existing 9,487 s.f. proposed Will need a transfer of
commercial allocation. Restaurant - 3,760 s.f
Conference Facilities - 5,727 s.f.
Height 45 feet 105 feet GPA requested.
Slope line (setback:height) 1 : 1 0.25 : 1 GPA requested.
Setbacks - - -
Front None required except to:
− Ensure sufficient space for
adequate light, air and
visibility at intersections
− Assure general conformity
to yard requirements of
adjacent or nearby zones, lot
or parcels
− Promote excellence in
development
~ 20 feet Measured from existing
property line. This
setback reduces to ~5
feet with a required
dedication along N. De
Anza Blvd. Additional
setback may be required
for aesthetics and
landscaping
opportunities.
Minimum side and rear None required Varies b/n 20 & 40 feet
127
Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
Building area Existing – 8,323 s.f. Proposed – 201,638 s.f. -
Lot coverage Existing – 15%
(no maximum requirements)
Proposed – 53.7% -
Parking
Vehicles - 1/room + 1/employee 280 spaces 208 spaces Parking study needed as
required by the City’s
Parking Ordinance.
Restaurant Facilities 1/3 seats + 1/employee 0
Conference Facilities To be determined through
parking study 0
Bikes - 5% of auto parking 14 0 Bike parking required
Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility:
The site is generally satisfactory with active uses including the lobby and restaurant
along N. De Anza Boulevard and the vehicular entry to the underground basement
at the rear of the site. Additional, site planning review may be required to
reorganize some back of house activities located at the northeast corner of the
building. Parking is located underground minimizing the height of the building.
However, additional review will need to be conducted to ensure that the circulation
meets sightlines and other safety requirements.
The architectural and site design quality needs further development. The design and
massing could be improved to reduce the height and bulk of the building and
ensure that the building can fit in better with the lower buildings surrounding it.
The selection of materials needs further review.
The small size of the site does not allow for landscaping or large setbacks. Further
review would be required to look at opportunities to add landscaping and trees to
screen and enhance the project.
The site plan would need to make the following changes:
The building wall along N. De Anza Boulevard could be moved approximately
15 feet to the west to allow adequate light, air and provide opportunities for
landscaping due to a required dedication along N. De Anza Boulevard. The
determination of slope line (setback to height ratio) is incorrect on the proposed
plans. It appears that the slope line is calculated from the existing property line.
However, the slope line is measured from the face of curb rather than property
line, and therefore the final slope line variance would be less intensified than
shown on plan since the curb line is not proposed/anticipated to move with this
development.
128
Driveway along the north side of the building:
o The north building wall would need to be moved by approximately 15 feet to
the south to allow for a required 30 foot driveway along the north of the
property per the conditions of approval of the established zoning for the
property (Zoning Ordinance No. 436.) The ordinance requires “three car
widths” which is estimated to be 30 feet, since travel lanes for a single car is
10 feet at a minimum. Since this zoning requirement also applies to the
Homestead Shopping Center, it would be prudent for this driveway to align
with the location of the driveway connecting to that property. An amendment
to that ordinance or a variance from that requirement would be required in
order to allow the building wall to remain at its currently proposed location.
However, the applicant has not indicated that they wish to apply for a
variance or amendment to that ordinance.
o Would be better aligned with the Homestead Shopping Center if the north
building wall proposed is moved to the south.
Finally, fire code requires 26’ width for all drive aisles adjacent to building
frontages. This needs to be verified.
Net Fiscal Impacts:
The applicant estimates transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues to the City to be
$2,838,240, based on an 85% occupancy rate. An analysis of fiscal impacts to the City
has been prepared by the EPS, a third-party consulting firm, which indicates that a
more conservative estimate is net revenue of $1.7 - 2.6 million. (See Attachment E.1.)
The project could diversify the City’s economic base by adding a second full-service
hotel in Cupertino. The applicant states that this would be the only full-service hotel
in Cupertino upon construction; however, Juniper Hotel (formerly Cypress Hotel) is
considered a full-service hotel.
Provision of affordable housing:
The proposal does not include any affordable housing. However, the applicant will
be required to pay any applicable affordable housing fees as a project requirement.
Environmental Sustainability:
The Green roof at mezzanine level would reduce air quality impacts, increase energy
efficiency, increase roof longevity, and facilitate stormwater/clean water control
measures. This could be a project requirement and not an additional enhancement
since the site is tight and many opportunities to meet stormwater control
requirements do not exist.
129
Proposed shuttle service for guests would reduce vehicle miles traveled and
greenhouse gas emissions. However, this would likely be a project requirement and
not a project amenity beyond statutory requirements.
Additional measures and analysis regarding landscape, water and energy use,
stormwater management, greenhouse gas emissions and waste management would
be refined and expanded at the formal application stage. However, it does not
appear that these measures would go above and beyond statutory requirements.
Voluntary Community Amenities Proposed:
Table 3 below lists the proposed community amenities by the applicant and staff’s
analysis of the proposal.
Table 3: Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities
Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments
School resources None N/A $0
Public open space None N/A $0
Public facilities Complementary use of
conference facilities to
Cupertino residents on
weekends, as available. Hours,
length of agreement, rates and
facility details are not specified.
Residents, when
available
$0
The value of this
proposed amenity
cannot accurately be
quantified due to
lack of details
Transportation
facilities
Shuttles for guests and
employees similar to shuttle
available for the existing
Cupertino Inn Hotel on the
adjacent parcel.
Guests and
Employees
$0
This is a typical
project requirement
for hotels and not a
community amenity
Total Value $0
Total Value/square foot $0
Oaks Shopping Center
Project Location – 21255 – 21755 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project Description – The proposal for redevelopment of the Oaks site is a request for
authorization of a General Plan amendment application which would facilitate
development of 280,000-square foot, 7-story office building, 200-room, 6-story tall hotel,
270 residential units (including 40 market-rate senior age-restricted and, 30 below-
market-rate senior age-restricted units), in two 5-story buildings and one 5-story tall
building and 47,660-square feet of retail replacing an ~73,056 sq. ft. commercial center.
130
Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The project is located in the western portion of the City at the northeast intersection of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and State Route 85. Mary Avenue forms the eastern border of
the site and wraps around the site, forming the northern border. The site contains an
existing ~73,056 square foot commercial shopping center, with oak trees surrounding
and distributed throughout the site. The site is accessed from Stevens Creek Boulevard
and from Mary Avenue.
Surrounding uses include a 517-unit (2-story) apartment complex to the north, Highway
85 to the west, De Anza College and Flint Center (3-story; 109-feet) to the south across
Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Senior Center and Memorial Park to the east. The
tallest structures in this area which exceed the City’s 45-foot height restrictions are
located at the De Anza College campus.
Application Overview
The project is located in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. This area of the City is
identified as an area to accommodate a variety of land use opportunities of well-
planned and designed commercial, office, residential development, enhanced activity
nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transportation
between activity centers that help focus and support activity in the centers. Table 4
contains project data along with General Plan amendments or variances requested
and/or required.
131
Table 4: Oaks Project Data
Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
General Plan designation Commercial/Residential Commercial/Office/
Residential
GPA requested. Alternatively,
a change in General Plan
designation requested under
“mixed use project” incentive
under Density Bonus Law.
However, office uses are not
planned and do not exist in
this subarea within Heart of
the City.
Zoning designation Planned Zoning with
General Commercial and
Residential uses – P(CG,
Res)
Planned Zoning with
General Commercial,
Professional Office and
Residential uses
Rezoning required.
Alternatively, rezoning
requested under “mixed use
project” incentive under
Density Bonus Law.
Professional Office includes
medical offices. Final zoning
designation to be determined.
Lot coverage ~ 25% existing
No Maximum Restrictions 46%
Floor Area Ratio 0.20 existing
No Maximum 0.68
Development allocation:
Office - 280,000 sq. ft. * Requesting allocation from
Major Employer pot. However,
applicant does not qualify as a
Major Employer. Therefore,
GPA requested. Alternatively,
allocation requested as part of
the “mixed use project”
Incentive under Density Bonus
Law.
Retail ~73,056 sq. ft. 47,660 sq. ft.
Hotel None available 200 rooms * GPA requested. Alternatively,
Hotel allocation requested as
part of the “mixed use project”
Incentive under Density Bonus
Law.
Residential - Total ~194 units † 270 units Under Density Bonus Law,
with 11% very low income
BMR units proposed,
Very low income units - (11%) 22 units (senior)
Low income units - (4%) 8 units (senior)
132
Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
Market rate units (including
Density Bonus units)
- 240 units (including 40
senior units)
maximum 35% density bonus
allowed, for total of 262 units.
City has discretion to consider
and grant a larger density
bonus. With 270 units, density
bonus would = ~39%.
Height 45 feet Up to 88 feet * GPA requested. Alternatively,
increased heights requested as
an Incentive under Density
Bonus Law.
Office Building 45 feet 88 feet *
Hotel Building 45 feet 70 feet *
Apartment Buildings 45 feet Three buildings – 60 feet *
Slope line (setback : height)
Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 : 1 1 : 3* GPA requested. Alternatively,
change in slope line requested
as a waiver under Density
Bonus Law.
Mary Avenue - 1 : 3.5 1:1 slope line does not apply.
Setbacks
Front (South property
line - Stevens Creek
Blvd)
9 foot setback from property
line + 26 feet landscape
easement = 35 foot total
35 foot setback for buildings
from edge of curb.
Side – Interior (West property
line – along State Route 85)
1/2 height of building (44
feet) or 10 feet whichever is
greater
25 feet Requires Heart of the City
Exception. Alternatively,
change in setback standard
requested as a Waiver under
Density Bonus Law.
Side– Street side (North
property line - Mary Ave)
9 feet ~ 20 feet (for Hotel)
~ 14 feet (for Residential)
Heart of the City Specific Plan
recommends (but does not
require) that the minimum
frontage requirements on
Stevens Creek Boulevard be
applied to corner lots.
Parking
Parking study needed for non-
residential portion of project
since reduced parking proposed
as required by the City’s
Parking Ordinance.
Reduction in residential
parking standards requested
under Density Bonus Law.
Vehicular Parking 1,972 spaces and parking
study needed
1,208 (including 74
tandem spaces)
Office – 1/285 s.f. 982 spaces 485 spaces
Hotel – 1/room + 1/employee 220 spaces 138 spaces
Hotel bar + restaurant Parking study needed ~32 spaces
Conference facilities ~7 spaces
Residential – 2/unit 540 spaces 349 spaces
Retail – 1/250 (higher for
restaurants)
191 spaces 236 spaces
133
Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
Bike Parking – 5% of auto 152 spaces 220 spaces
Open space
Private Open Space – Res. 60 sq. ft./unit 60 sq. ft./unit
Common Open Space Heart of the City Exception
required. Alternatively,
reduction in common open
space standards requested as a
waiver under Density Bonus
Law. Applicant is requesting
that a plaza shared with retail
uses, an interior linear median
shared with retail uses and
access paths also shared with
retail, office and public use be
applied toward this
requirement.
Residential Common
Open Space - Total
150 sq. ft./unit or 40,500 sq.
ft. total
155 sq. ft./unit or 41,956 sq.
ft. total
Residential Landscape 70 – 80% of total common
open space or between
28,500 sq. ft. – 32,400 sq. ft.
~ 25% of total common open
space or ~10,435 sq. ft.
Residential Hardscape 20 – 30% of total common
open space or between 8,100
sq. ft. and 12,150 sq. ft.
~ 75% of total common open
space or ~31,521 sq. ft.
Office and Retail
Common Open Space
2.5% of gross floor area ~9.5% of gross floor area Some areas such as drop-off
areas and medians are not
useable. Hotel does not require
Common Open Space in Heart
of the City Specific Plan.
† Maximum residential yield dependent on net acreage of site. Applicant has not indicated
the net acreage after dedications. Net acreage has been estimated by staff upon consultation
with the Public Works Department at ~7.79 acres.
Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility
Site plan layout strives to retain some of the existing retail uses, which is encouraged
in the General Plan. Active retail uses are provided in the proposed project.
Addition of hotel and office uses creates a tight site configuration, resulting in
reduction of required and useable common open space and increased height for
retail/residential component.
Heights along Stevens Creek Boulevard are taller than adjacent buildings, except for
the 109 foot tall Flint Center, which is set back considerably from the street. Heights
along Mary Avenue to the north of the site have been reduced for the residential
buildings proposed to be more in scale with the Glenbrook apartment buildings
across the street. However, this may still be an issue for the proposed hotel building.
Architectural review will be required to review massing, building articulation and
materials. The buildings may need to have upper floors reduced or set back along
the street to ensure that they fit in with the heights of the surrounding buildings.
134
The proposed buildings lack distinctive entry features, roof forms and variety of
facades as encouraged by the Heart of the City Specific Plan
The project site is included in the City’s 2014-2022 Housing Element with a 200 unit
capacity and an allowed density of 25 units/acre and an acreage of ~8 acres. However,
the maximum residential yield for the site (at 25 units/acre) is ~194 units since, after
dedications, the net acreage of the site is ~7.79 acres. This is because at that time of
adoption of the Housing Element, the net acreage of the site after dedications was not
known. This has not been provided by the applicant at this time and has been estimated
in consultation with Public Works staff.
The project proposes to provide 11% of the allowed number of units, as very low
income units and an additional 4% of the allowed number of units, as low income units,
for a total of 15% affordable units. With 15% affordable units, the project will not be
required to pay any Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation Fees. It also qualifies for
various regulatory incentives under the State’s Density Bonus law.
State Density Bonus Law Provisions
Because the project includes 11% very low income units, the project is eligible for a
density bonus and other modifications of the City’s usual development standards.
Density Bonus - State Density Bonus Law allows a project to receive the maximum
density bonus of 35%, in exchange for providing 11% very low income units. This
would allow 262 units total (194 allowed units + 68 bonus units). The proposed number
of units is 270 units, or 8 more units than the project is entitled to, even with a 35%
density bonus. The City’s local density bonus ordinance (Section 19.56.030F(6)) allows
the City to grant bonuses greater than 35% in exchange for more than the required
affordable units or other amenities, but this is solely at the City’s discretion. Should the
project be considered at the proposed number of residential units, the density bonus
would be ~39%.
Parking Reductions - State Density Bonus Law states that projects with affordable units
cannot be required to provide more than one parking space for studio and one-bedroom
units; two parking spaces for 2- and 3-bedroom units; and 2.5 parking spaces for 4-
bedroom units and larger. The project does not propose any 4-bedroom units or larger.
The developer is proposing to provide 349 spaces for the residential portion rather than
the City’s required 540 spaces. If authorized, the final parking count will be confirmed
during project review. The applicant is also proposing parking reductions and shared
parking for the non-residential portion as indicated in Table 4. A parking study will be
required to analyze the proposal.
135
Incentives and Concessions - State Density Bonus Law allows this developer to request
two incentives and concessions. Permissible incentives and concessions include, but are
not limited to:
1. Modifications of development standards: Reducing development standards or a zoning
code requirement or architectural design requirement, such as setbacks, square
footage, or height, which results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions;
2. Mixed-Use Project: Approving mixed-use zoning in conjunction with a housing
project, if the non-residential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing
development, and if the non-residential land uses are compatible with the housing
project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed
housing project will be located;
3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City,
which result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
Incentives and concessions are intended to make the affordable housing financially
feasible. The City’s density bonus ordinance requires the developer to provide a pro
forma to demonstrate that the incentives and concessions are actually needed to
provide the affordable housing.
Waivers of Development Standards - State Density Bonus Law also allows the
developer to request waivers of any development standards (setback, height, etc.) that
will “physically preclude” the project from being built with the d ensity bonus and
incentives that the project is entitled to. The City first needs to determine what
incentives the developer is entitled to and then can evaluate any requests for waivers to
determine if they are needed. The developer needs to demonstrate that the City’s usual
development standards will “physically preclude” the project from being built with the
density bonus and incentives.
Under State Density Bonus law, if a proposed housing development qualifies for a
density bonus and a parking reduction, the City must grant them if it approves the
project. Requests for incentives and waivers are more discretionary. An incentive must
be necessary to provide for affordable housing costs. If, for instance, the density bonus
by itself provides adequate additional profit to provide for affordable housing costs, the
City is not required to approve any incentives. Additionally, any proposed mixed use
(such as the hotel and office proposed here) must: 1) reduce the cost of the housing
development; 2) be compatible with the housing development; and 3) be compatible
with existing or planned development in the area. As noted previously, currently, the
136
City’s adopted General Plan and Specific Plan for the sub-area that this proposed
project is located in, does not plan for or have any existing office uses.
Waivers must be granted only if they would “physically preclude” development of the
proposed housing with the incentives and density bonus that the project is entitled to.
Project Requests:
The applicant has indicated that the project needs the modifications of development
standards identified in Table 5 below, in order to make the development financially
feasible with the proposed affordable units. It appears that the applicant is both: 1)
requesting a general plan amendment to allow office use, receive an office and hotel
allocation and increase heights and amend slope lines; and 2) indicating that the
aforementioned requests are ‘incentives’ required to make the project financially
feasible. However, the applicant has not provided any supporting financial
documentation required by the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance in order to allow
determination of whether the incentives are needed to make the project feasible, nor has
the applicant provided adequate information to determine if the waivers are necessary
at this time.
Table 5: Proposed Modifications of Development Standards under State Density
Bonus Law
Proposed Incentive/Concession Proposed Waivers/Reductions
Mixed-use Project: approval of a mixed-use project
is requested with hotel (200-room, 6-story, 70-feet)
and office uses (280,000 sq. ft., 7-story, 88-feet), in
conjunction with the retail/residential project
(apartments, senior housing, including 15-percent
affordable units, total 270 units, 5-levels, 60 feet).
Since Office use is not an allowed use under the
land use designation, a GPA would be required to
change the land use designation to allow this use.
The office allocation requested by the applicant is
from the major employer category. However, the
applicant does not qualify as a major employer.
This is also being requested as a GPA, as an
alternative.
Currently, the zoning allows for commercial
(including hotel uses with a Conditional Use
Permit) and up to 25 du/net acre (~194 units) of
Common Landscaped Open Space for Residential:
The “Heart of the City” Specific Plan Section
2.01.010.G requires developments with a residential
component to contain landscaped/garden areas and
hardscape areas that encourage social interaction. In
addition, it requires that 70% to 80% of the total
residential common outdoor open space should be
landscaped. It also specifies that the location should be
in a courtyard, side yard, rear yard or common green
for larger developments. The space should be
rectilinear with no side less than 15 feet and enclosed
75% by buildings, low walls, low fences or linear
landscaping and not bordered by surface parking
areas on more than one side.
The proposed Oaks project requests that this
residential common outdoor open space requirement
be waived and that they be allowed to only provide
25% of the residential common outdoor open space to
137
Proposed Incentive/Concession Proposed Waivers/Reductions
residential uses. However, a General Plan
amendment (GPA) would be required to develop
the hotel use since there is no hotel room allocation
in the General Plan.
The applicant is requesting the City Council to
consider approving the entire mixed use project,
including the office and hotel uses as an Incentive
under the Density Bonus Law.
be landscaped. However, this does include areas that
do not meet the requirements and are shared with
other uses, not available exclusively to the residential
users of the site such as within a plaza shared with
retail uses and a linear median shared with the public.
Reduction in Building Setbacks: Along the western
property line facing the Highway 85 on-ramp, the
applicant is proposing to reduce the setback from 44
feet down to 25 feet from the property line.
Increase the height limits for buildings onsite:
The Community Vision 2040 General Plan Chapter
3, Figure LU-1 establishes a maximum height of 45-
feet for the site. The project as designed would
exceed these height limits as proposed:
Office Buildings: 88-feet to the roof
Hotel Building: 70-feet to the roof
Residential Buildings: 60-feet to the roof
Reduction in Building Slopes: The City’s General
Plan requires the primary bulk of buildings along
arterials (Stevens Creek Boulevard, in this case) to
maintain below a 1:1 slope line (setback to height)
drawn from the street curb line. The proposed Oaks
project is requesting a waiver to the slope line
requirement. The applicant is proposing a slope line of
1:3 along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Reduction in parking standards: The applicant is also eligible for a reduction in the parking requirement for
the entire housing development (including the market-rate housing) as allowed by the State Density Bonus
Law, where 2 parking spaces per unit or a parking study is required by the City’s Parking Ordinance, as
follows:
1 parking space for 0-1 bedroom units
2 parking space for 2-3 bedroom units
Environmental Sustainability
The project proponent has identified certain environmentally sustainable features of the
project. However, many of the features are simply statutory requirements, as noted
below, and not a project bonus.
LEED Silver certification for all buildings – This is a statutory requirement
Shuttle service for the hotel – This would likely be a project requirement
Comply with Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Provision C.3 to
address post-construction stormwater management requirements for redevelopment
projects – This is a statutory requirement
Proposed project will feature native and drought-tolerant plants that require
minimal supplemental water, paired with efficient irrigation systems to reduce
outdoor water usage – This is a statutory requirement and not a project bonus
The proposed project will be built with environmentally preferable products with a
high-recycled content, sensitive to the use of natural resources. – This is encouraged
in the General Plan and is a project bonus
138
Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities
The following tables (Tables 6 and 7) contain the qualifying proposed community
amenities and non-qualifying proposed community amenities and staff’s analysis of the
amenities.
The applicant proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City that
includes the voluntary community amenities shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Community Amenity Summary
Description Beneficiary Amount Comments
School
Resources
Cash contribution for
construction of
permanent school
room facilities
CUSD $1.0 million This is a qualified
community amenity
because it benefits a
school project.
Public Open
Space
Cash contributions to
the Veterans
Memorial at Memorial
Park
City of
Cupertino
$250,000 While this is not in a
current CIP program, the
money is a placeholder
and the applicant has
indicated that they
would be willing to let
the City decide on the
use of this money.
Restroom
improvement at
Memorial Park
City of
Cupertino
$50,000 While this is not in a
current CIP program, the
money is a placeholder
and the applicant has
indicated that they
would be willing to let
the City decide on the
use of this money.
Public Facilities Cash contribution
towards the Cupertino
Civic Center
City of
Cupertino
$1.1 million This contribution is a
qualified community
amenity. $1.1 million
Public Art City of
Cupertino
$150,000
($250,000 total
including
City
requirement)
Community amenity
portion above City
requirements is:
$150,000. The applicant
has indicated that they
would be willing to let
the City decide on the
use of this money.
139
Description Beneficiary Amount Comments
Transportation Mary Avenue Road
improvements, safety
enhancements and
safe routes to schools
City of
Cupertino
$1.15 million Mary Ave road
improvement item
(excluding frontage
improvements and
median channelization)
is qualified as
community amenity:
Staff notes that if the
Council is supportive,
the scope should include
the entire length of Mary
Ave between Stevens
Creek Blvd and Don
Burnett Bridge,
installation of fiber optic
communications along
Mary Ave to City’s
Service Center, green
street, and pavement
upgrade. Total cost to
make the additional and
proposed improvements
is approximately $3M.
Council can determine
whether they wish to
fund the balance of the
improvements or
whether the value
proposed by the
applicant may be used
for another use.
Cash contribution to
city’s future senior
shuttle program
City of
Cupertino
$400,000 The contribution would
be applied to a City-wide
shuttle program, not
necessarily limited to
seniors) and is therefore
a qualified community
amenity.
Total City Estimated Value of Qualified Community Amenities $4.1 million
Total Value per sq. ft. $5.49
140
Table 7: Non-Qualified Community Amenity Summary
Description Beneficiary Amount Comments
School
Resources
Parcel Tax (requires
Condominium Map on
residential component of
project)
CUSD /
FUHSD
$0 The project does not include a
subdivision map. This is payment of a
tax and does not qualify as a
community amenity. The applicant
estimates this at $100,000 per year; or $2
million over 20 years. Existing parcel
tax measures sunset in 6–8 years.
Cash contribution for
future study or signage
improvements for safe
routes to school
De Anza
College
$0 The proposed contribution is not a
community amenity because the
beneficiary is De Anza College.
Applicant estimates this at $100,000.
Transportation Stevens Creek Boulevard
traffic improvements
City of
Cupertino
$0 The proposed improvements are part of
the project requirements and do not
qualify as a community amenity.
Applicant estimates this at $450,000.
72 parking passes to De
Anza College annually
for five years
De Anza
College
$0
The applicant estimates this cost as
$32,400. However, it does not qualify as
a community amenity.
Affordable
Housing
Provide affordable
housing levels in excess
of City requirement
City of
Cupertino
$0
Applicant would have had to pay a
Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation
Fee if affordable units not provided.
However, the applicant is eligible to
receive a density bonus of ~62 market
rate units, up to two incentives and
concessions (mixed use zoning, height,
allocation), a parking reduction and an
unlimited number of waivers (including
setback reductions, reductions in
common open areas, etc.) per state law.
Applicant estimates this as $1.1M;
however, it does not qualify as an
additional benefit, since the applicant
does not have to pay the BMR
Mitigation fee.
Economic
Development
Cash contribution for
creation of City office
incubator program
City of
Cupertino
$0
The applicant proposes $500,000.
However, it does not qualify as a
community amenity.
Applicant Estimated Value of Non-Qualified Community
Amenities:
≈ $ 4.182 million
141
Staff Time and Resources
The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager (either staff or consultant based
on availability) to guide the project through the entitlement process appropriate
environmental and city related reviews. Table 1 indicates the staff time estimated for
each project. Staff time and consultant costs will be paid for by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table (Table 8) indicates the public noticing and outreach conducted on
the General Plan authorization project.
Table 8: Noticing and Outreach
Noticing, Site Signage Agenda
Postcard mailed to all postal customers in
the City of Cupertino and within 500 feet of
subject property (including adjacent cities)
if within 500 feet of city boundary (at least
10 days prior to meeting)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (at least five days prior to
the hearing)
Site signage on subject property (at least 10
days prior to meeting)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (at least five days week prior to the
hearing)
Additional outreach has been conducted on the City’s Social Media platforms and
advertising on the City Channel.
As of publication of this staff report on January 27, 2016, staff has received two
comments; one questioning why the City of Cupertino would allow General Plan
amendments, and the other supporting the bicycle and pedestrian improvements
proposed by the Oaks Shopping Center project. The email received is within
Attachment D.
Environmental Impact
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply since the City
Council’s action, consideration and authorization of formal applications, is not a project
as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact analysis for each project is included in Attachment E.1 and E.2.
142
Good Year Tire: The fiscal impact analysis indicates that the full service hotel
currently proposed by the applicant provides the City with a net fiscal positive
revenue of $1.7 – 2.6 million.
Oaks site: The fiscal impact analysis indicates that as proposed the project would
generates a net positive fiscal revenue of $1.1 million. A sensitivity analysis indicates
that the hotel provides the most fiscal benefits in the project. Other portions of the
project, including the office development, do not generate significant revenues or
negatively impact the City’s revenues.
NEXT STEPS
Projects authorized by the Council to move forward will enter the formal development
review process including necessary environmental analysis. The timeline for the
projects will begin when the applications are complete and are expected to run about 7-
9 months.
Projects additionally have the option to resubmit their application with minor
adjustments based on Council input within 30 days of the Council meeting. The
applications will be brought back to a subsequent meeting later in Spring 2016.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Catarina Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner
Adam Petersen, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A- Resolution No.16-013 A Resolution authorizing applicants to submit General Plan
amendment applications
A.1 City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures
B- Goodyear Tire site project plans
C- The Oaks project plans
D- Comments from the public
E.1- Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis for The Goodyear Tire site proposal, prepared
by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated January 1, 2016
E.2- Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis for The Oaks proposal, prepared by Economics
and Planning Systems, Inc., dated January 1, 2016
143
RESOLUTION NO. 16-013
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
TO PROCEED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPAauth-2015-01; GPAauth-2015-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: 10931 N. De Anza Blvd., 21255-21755 Stevens Creek Blvd.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future
General Plan amendments, including to review prospective applications twice a year and
decide which are authorized to proceed as a General Plan Amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a
General Plan amendment application, does not in any way presume approval of any proposed
amendment or project; and
WHEREAS, the City received two applications by November 16, 2015, deadline to be
considered in the first cycle of the General Plan Amendment application review process; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to consider said General
Plan Amendment authorization applications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution is not a project within the meaning of section 15378
of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or
ultimately. 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 of a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted criteria for determining whether an application will
be authorized for processing as follows: :
a. General Plan goals achieved by the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(i) Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility;
144
Resolution No.____ February 2, 2016
Page 2
(ii) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project), including the extent to which the project would
diversify the City’s economic base;
(iii) The provision of affordable housing; and
(iv) Environmental Sustainability.
b. General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested.
c. Proposed voluntary community amenities, defined as (i) school resources, (ii) public
open space, such as parks and trails, (iii) public facilities and utilities, such as library,
community center or utility systems and (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis
on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles,
pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations
d. Staff time and resources required to process the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits,
testimony, staff reports, public comments, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City
Council of the City of Cupertino has determined that the following proposals are eligible to
proceed as General Plan Amendment applications:
{Names of projects authorized to proceed by the City Council to be inserted here}
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
2nd day of February 2016, by the following roll call vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSE:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________ _______________________
Grace Schmidt Barry Chang
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
145
RESOLUTION NO. 15-078
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, the City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled
Community Vision 2040, which reflects community input, regulatory changes, best practices, and
the desire to achieve community-building, sustainability, economic, and fiscal objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating various programs to manage development to
address development issues in light of concerns about rapid growth and the impacts of such
growth overwhelming the City's ability to accommodate it, as well as the substantial impacts of
development on quality of life in the community; and
WHEREAS, as part of its evaluation process, the City has considered Community Business
Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Management programs; and
WHEREAS, while CBIZ and Growth Management programs can be effective in metering
growth and providing for community benefits, they can be difficult to administer, are limited by
legal requirements and do not provide the flexibility for managing growth and its substantial
impacts on the community; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358( a) provides that: "If it deems it to be
in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An
amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body ...
. ";and
WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City's General Plan may be amended no more
than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, "an amendment may be
made at any time, as determined by the legislative body" (Cal. Gov. Code 65358(b)); and
WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code does not address the timing or initiation of general
plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, rather than pursue a CBIZ or Growth Management program, the City desires to
set forth an orderly process, in accordance with its legislative discretion, to consider General Plan
amendments and ensure that proposals are fairly considered in light of the City's goals and
concerns about growth; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment Procedures to provide a
process for preliminary review of proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed procedures on
May 19, 2015, and the Council directed staff to provide more information and options at a future
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City held an Open House on the General Plan Amendment Process on June
30, 2015, and the City Council held a Study Session after the Open House; and
146
Resolution No. 15-078
Page3
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
1. Background/Goals
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth
can overwhelm the City's ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the
community.
The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments that
will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and quality of
life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address amendments
requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments when it deems
necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within the General Plan.
2. Procedure
a. The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments twice a
year, approximately every six months.
b. In order to be considered for processing, applicants will be required to apply for
authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date.
c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly noticed
meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments.
d. Noticing-City-wide postcard and public meeting requirements.
e. Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following:
(i) General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility
(2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base
(3) The provision of affordable housing
( 4) Environmental Sustainability
(ii) General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested.
(iii) Proposed voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any.
(iv) Staff time and resources required to process the project.
f. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be
authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does not
in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff to
process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application in
accordance with all applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act
148
Resolution No. 15-078
Page4
(" CEQA") and the City's zoning laws and ordinances. Consideration of the application will
be in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and regulations.
g. Staff will begin processing the General Plan amendment applications per Council direction.
A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with the project
authorized by Council.
h. Proposals not authorized by the Council at the first meeting (per 2.c. above) may be
resubmitted with minor amendments within 30 days. Such projects will be considered by
the Council at a future public meeting, noticed per the Cupertino Municipal Code, after staff
review.
3. Voluntary Community Amenities
a. For purposes of this policy, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land
and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan
amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City, including enhancements of
the following:
(i) School resources
(ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails
(iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems
(iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit
centers/stations
4. Preliminary Review Requirements
a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that is
requested, such as site plans, preliminary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections,
preliminary grading plans and proposed materials.
b. A description, including graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use
approvals required, if any. The description should include diagrammatic information as
necessary to clearly explain the request.
c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan and
the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life.
d. A brief summary of net fiscal impacts.
e. In order to provide the public with early notice and opportunity to provide input, to the
extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3
above, of a type typically memorialized in a development agreement, the applicant should
include a Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized
in a Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved.
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
ww
w
.
a
r
c
t
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
1
2
3
0
8
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
:
DE
A
N
Z
A
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
10
9
3
1
N
.
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
.
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
E
A
M
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
DR
A
W
I
N
G
I
N
D
E
X
A
N
D
I
S
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
S
A1
.
0
1
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
A2
.
0
1
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
1
P
L
A
N
A2
.
0
2
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
2
P
L
A
N
A2
.
0
3
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
3
P
L
A
N
A2
.
1
1
F
I
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A2
.
1
2
S
E
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A2
.
1
3
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
(
3
-
7
)
A2
.
1
8
E
I
G
H
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A2
.
1
9
N
I
N
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A2
.
5
1
E
N
L
A
R
G
E
D
H
O
T
E
L
R
O
O
M
P
L
A
N
S
A2
.
5
2
E
N
L
A
R
G
E
D
H
O
T
E
L
R
O
O
M
P
L
A
N
S
A3
.
0
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
0
2
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
1
1
R
E
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
1
2
R
E
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A4
.
0
1
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
A
N
E
W
9
S
T
O
R
Y
H
O
T
E
L
W
I
T
H
2
7
0
R
O
O
M
S
A
N
D
T
O
T
A
L
I
N
G
1
5
6
,
3
1
7
S
.
F
.
FI
R
S
T
I
S
S
U
E
O
R
N
O
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
S
I
N
C
E
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
I
S
S
U
E
MO
D
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
S
I
N
C
E
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
I
S
S
U
E
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
S
A
N
D
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
11.16.15
PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
A
R
C
T
E
C
I
N
C
.
99
A
l
m
a
d
e
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
8
4
0
Sa
n
J
o
s
e
,
C
A
9
5
1
1
3
40
8
.
4
9
6
.
0
6
7
6
Cr
a
i
g
A
l
m
e
l
e
h
ca
l
m
e
l
e
h
@
a
r
c
t
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
CI
V
I
L
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
:
RU
T
H
&
G
O
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
22
1
6
T
h
e
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
Sa
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
,
C
A
9
5
0
5
0
40
8
.
2
3
6
.
2
4
0
0
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
S
h
e
e
h
y
ms
h
e
e
h
y
@
r
u
t
h
a
n
d
g
o
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
2
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
3
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
4
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
5
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
E
N
E
R
G
Y
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
6
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
F
I
R
E
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
T
I
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
9
)
20
1
0
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
G
R
E
E
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
C
O
D
E
(
C
C
R
TI
T
L
E
2
4
,
P
A
R
T
1
1
)
AL
L
C
O
D
E
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
L
O
C
A
L
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
P
E
R
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
B
U
L
L
E
T
I
N
1
0
-
0
3
.
AP
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
C
O
D
E
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
TH
E
G
U
Z
Z
A
R
D
O
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
18
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
i
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
A
9
4
1
1
1
41
5
.
4
3
3
.
4
6
7
2
Pa
u
l
L
e
t
t
i
e
r
i
p.
l
e
t
t
i
e
r
i
@
t
g
p
-
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
OW
N
E
R
:
TH
E
S
O
B
R
A
T
O
O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
10
6
0
0
N
.
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
CI
V
I
L
C1
.
0
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
A
N
D
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
U
R
V
E
Y
C2
.
0
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
C3
.
0
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
L1
.
0
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
OW
N
E
R
N
A
M
E
:
DE
A
N
Z
A
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
10
9
3
2
1
N
.
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
.
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
AS
S
E
S
S
O
R
'
S
P
A
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
:
AP
N
1
6
0
-
5
5
-
0
1
5
,
0
1
6
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
CG
-
r
g
p
e
r
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
4
3
6
SI
T
E
A
R
E
A
,
N
E
T
:
56
,
2
8
7
S
.
F
.
/
1
.
2
9
A
C
R
E
S
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
20
1
,
6
3
8
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
M
T
G
.
/
B
A
N
Q
U
E
T
S
P
A
C
E
:
5,
7
2
7
S
.
F
.
FL
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
R
A
T
I
O
(
F
A
R
)
:
3.
5
8
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
:
9
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
I-
A
FI
R
E
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
S
:
YE
S
OC
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
T
Y
P
E
:
R1
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
:
30
,
2
1
2
S
.
F
.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
(
%
O
F
S
I
T
E
)
:
5
3
.
7
%
GA
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
92
,
4
4
2
S
.
F
.
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
:
3
(
B
E
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
)
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
1-
A
FI
R
E
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
S
YE
S
OC
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
T
Y
P
E
:
S-
2
HO
T
E
L
R
O
O
M
S
:
27
0
TY
P
E
A
:
9
4
TY
P
E
B
:
9
8
TY
P
E
C
:
1
6
TY
P
E
D
:
1
3
TY
P
E
E
:
1
1
TY
P
E
F
:
8
TY
P
E
G
:
5
TY
P
E
H
:
7
TY
P
E
J
:
1
2
TY
P
E
K
:
4
TY
P
E
L
:
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
A
T
A
VIEW FROM NORTH EAST CORNER VIEW FROM SOUTH EAST CORNER
15
6
ONE WAY
ON
E
W
A
Y
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
ON
E
W
A
Y
ONE
W
A
Y
ON
E
W
A
Y
UPDN UPUPUPDN
UP
DN
UP
DN
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
16'-0"23'-0"
1'-5"
2'-0"
18'-9"
28'-0"4'-0"4'-4"
8'
-
6
"
26
'
-
0
"
2'
-
4
"
S
9
S
1
S
2
A
1
1
33
3
3 33
2 2
20'-0" SETBACK
20'-0" SETBACK
4
4
4 4 4 5
5
6
16
7
7
77
7
8
9
9
9
9 10
10
10 10 11
1
A4
.
0
1
A1
.
0
1
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
SI
T
E
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
30
,
2
1
2
S
.
F
.
SI
T
E
A
R
E
A
56
,
2
8
7
S
.
F
.
/
1
.
2
9
A
C
R
E
S
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
53
.
7
%
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
1
P
E
R
E
M
P
L
O
Y
E
E
+
1
P
E
R
R
O
O
M
1
0
E
M
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
+
2
7
0
R
O
O
M
S
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
2
8
0
S
P
A
C
E
S
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
ON
G
R
A
D
E
UN
I
S
T
A
L
L
13
S
P
A
C
E
S
VA
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
1
S
P
A
C
E
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
65
S
T
A
L
L
S
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
65
S
T
A
L
L
S
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
65
S
T
A
L
L
S
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
20
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
PR
E
V
I
O
U
S
L
Y
2
0
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
AU
T
O
M
O
B
I
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
(
1
9
.
1
2
4
.
0
4
0
B
)
ST
A
L
L
T
Y
P
E
W
I
D
T
H
D
E
P
T
H
A
I
S
L
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
T
UN
I
S
T
A
L
L
8
'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
0
"
Y
E
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
(
C
B
C
T
A
B
L
E
1
1
B
-
2
0
8
.
2
)
20
1
-
3
0
0
7
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
T
MI
N
I
M
U
M
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
YE
S
SC
A
L
E
:
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
1/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
123
PA
V
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
S
6"
H
I
G
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
4
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
5
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
T
H
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
A
N
D
H
A
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
7
PO
R
T
E
C
O
C
H
E
R
E
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
P
A
V
I
N
G
9
LI
N
E
O
F
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
B
O
V
E
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
10
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
V
A
U
L
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
D
O
O
R
S
8
CA
N
O
P
Y
A
B
O
V
E
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
6
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
11
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
TR
A
N
S
I
T
M
A
P
SI
T
E
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
SI
T
E
28
0
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
d
.
St
e
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
.
De Anza Blvd.Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd.
Wolfe Rd.
85
15
7
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
UP DNRAMP UP
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUPUPDN
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
UP
DN
S
8
S
21
S
3
S
11
S
11
S3 S8
A2
.
0
1
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
1
P
L
A
N
(
6
5
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
15
8
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
RAMP UP
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUPUPDN
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
UP DN
UP
DN
S
8
S
21
S
3
S
11
S
11
S3 S8
A2
.
0
2
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
2
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
2
P
L
A
N
(
6
5
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
15
9
RAMP UP
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUPUPDN
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
UP DN
UP
DN
S
8
S
21
S
3
S
11
S
11
S3 S8
A2
.
0
3
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
3
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
-
3
P
L
A
N
(
6
5
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
16
0
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUPUPDN
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
GA
L
L
E
R
Y
EMERGENCY EXIT &KITCHEN DELIVERY DOORS EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
EX
I
T
TRASH ROOM704 SF KITCHEN1,288 SF SERVICECORRIDORo.h. door EQUIP. STOR.590 SF
WO
M
E
N
LOUNGE MENCONFERENCE #41,336 SF90 OCCUPANTS
JA
N
.
/
ST
O
R
.
glassdivider
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
EL
E
V
.
L
O
B
B
Y
LO
U
N
G
E
LO
B
B
Y
CO
N
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
#
1
1,
7
1
3
S
F
11
4
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
T
S
CONFERENCE
#
2
1,513 SF101 OCCUPAN
T
S
EX
I
T
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
STOR.CONFERENCE #31,165 SF78 OCCUPANTS
ST
O
R
.
STOR.
BE
L
L
C
A
P
/
LU
G
G
A
G
E
ST
O
R
A
G
E
24
5
S
F
LO
B
B
Y
DE
S
K
DI
N
I
N
G
BA
R
elev. opening
BA
R
ST
O
R
A
G
E
AN
D
D
I
S
H
AR
E
A
11
0
S
F
OF
F
I
C
E
17
0
S
F
ELEC.ROOM
ONE WAY
ON
E
W
A
Y
RA
M
P
D
O
W
N
ON
E
W
A
Y
ON
E
W
A
Y
ON
E
W
A
Y
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUPUPDN
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
GA
L
L
E
R
Y
EMERGENCY EXIT &KITCHEN DELIVERY DOORS EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
EX
I
T
TRASH ROOM704 SF KITCHEN1,288 SF SERVICECORRIDORo.h. door EQUIP. STOR.590 SF
WO
M
E
N
LOUNGE MENCONFERENCE #41,336 SF90 OCCUPANTS
JA
N
.
/
ST
O
R
.
glassdivider
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
EL
E
V
.
L
O
B
B
Y
LO
U
N
G
E
LO
B
B
Y
CO
N
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
#
1
1,
7
1
3
S
F
11
4
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
T
S
CONFERENCE
#
2
1,513 SF101 OCCUPAN
T
S
EX
I
T
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
STOR.CONFERENCE #31,165 SF78 OCCUPANTS
ST
O
R
.
STOR.
BE
L
L
C
A
P
/
LU
G
G
A
G
E
ST
O
R
A
G
E
24
5
S
F
LO
B
B
Y
DE
S
K
DI
N
I
N
G
BA
R
elev. opening
BA
R
ST
O
R
A
G
E
AN
D
D
I
S
H
AR
E
A
11
0
S
F
OF
F
I
C
E
17
0
S
F
ELEC.ROOM
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
2
A3
.
0
1
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
2
1A3.02
A2
.
1
1
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
HO
T
E
L
-
L
O
B
B
Y
L
E
V
E
L
,
C
O
N
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
,
A
N
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
1
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
UPUP
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9101112
13 14 15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
23
2
A3
.
0
1
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
2
1A3.02
A2
.
1
2
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
(
2
3
R
O
O
M
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
2
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
1 2 3 4 5 678910
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819202122
23 24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
333435363738
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
(L
E
V
E
L
S
6
AN
D
7
O
N
L
Y
)
2
A3
.
0
1
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
2
1A3.02 BALCONY(LEVELS 6AND 7 ONLY)
A2
.
1
3
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
T
H
R
U
SE
V
E
N
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
T
Y
P
.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
T
H
R
U
S
E
V
E
N
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
T
Y
P
.
-
(
3
8
R
O
O
M
S
O
N
E
A
.
F
L
O
O
R
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
3
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
1 2 3 456
7
8
9
10
11
121314
15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
252627282930
2
A3
.
0
1
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
2
1A3.02
A2
.
1
8
EI
G
H
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EI
G
H
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
(
3
0
R
O
O
M
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
4
23
2
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
12'-6"
125'-6"
29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"
15
'
-
7
"
UPDN
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
7
"
13
'
-
6
"
13
'
-
5
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"
UP
DN
UP
DN
2'-6"
2'
-
6
"
1 2 3 4
5
6
7
8
91011
12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
222324272526
2
A3
.
0
1
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
2
1A3.02
A2
.
1
9
NI
N
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
NI
N
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
(
2
7
R
O
O
M
S
)
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
5
A
B
D
E
F
C
C
G
BH SCALE: 7ROOM
T
Y
P
E
A
,
B
,
D
,
E
1/4" =
1
'
-
0
"
A2
.
5
1
EN
L
A
R
G
E
D
R
O
O
M
P
L
A
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SCALE: 9ROOM
T
Y
P
E
G
1/4" =
1
'
-
0
"
SCALE: 8ROOM
T
Y
P
E
F
1/4" =
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
6
RO
O
M
T
Y
P
E
C
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SCALE: 11ROOM TYPE H1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 12ROOM TYPE J1/4" = 1'-0"
16
6
J
D
K
A
L 12'-6"29'-0"K
A2
.
5
2
EN
L
A
R
G
E
D
R
O
O
M
P
L
A
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SCALE: 12ROOM TYPE L1/4" = 1'-0"
SC
A
L
E
:
8
RO
O
M
T
Y
P
E
A
,
D
,
J
,
K
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SCALE: 10ROOM TYPE K1/4" = 1'-0"
16
7
18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"11'-0"9'-0"
104'-6"
18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"11'-0"9'-0"
104'-6"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
10
4
'
-
6
"
CU
R
R
E
N
T
M
A
X
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
90
'
-
0
"
A3
.
0
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EA
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
WE
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
8
18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"11'-0"9'-0"
104'-6"
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
A
T
1
:
1
PROPERTY LINE
18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"11'-0"9'-0"
104'-6"
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
A
T
1
:
1
PROPERTY LINE
A3
.
0
2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EA
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
WE
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
16
9
A3
.
1
1
RE
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EA
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
WE
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
17
0
A3
.
1
2
RE
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
NO
R
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
SO
U
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
17
1
A
B
C
D
E
FJ
N.
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAMP TO GARAGE
PROPERTY LINE
A4
.
0
1
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A New Project for:
DE ANZA PROPERTIES
10931 N. De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 9501412
3
1
0
8
11
.
1
6
.
1
5
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
17
2
173
PROJECT NO:
DATE DESCRIPTION
In Association with:
123108
11.13.14PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
174
PROJECT NO:
DATE DESCRIPTION
In Association with:
123108
11.13.14PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
175
PROJECT NO:
DATE DESCRIPTION
In Association with:
123108
11.13.14PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
176
City of Cupertino
General Plan Amendment Application
for The Oaks
November 16, 2015
Proposed by:
21710 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 200
Cupertino, CA 95014
177
November 16, 2015
David Brandt, City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Dear City Manager Brandt and Assistant City Manager Shrivastava,
On behalf of KT Urban, I am pleased to submit this General Plan Amendment Application in support of the
revitalization of The Oaks Shopping Center, located on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Highway 85.
The city’s Specific Plan envisions The Oaks becoming Cupertino’s western gateway to the “Heart of the
City,” the most important commercial corridor in town. After purchasing the obsolete shopping center
earlier this year, my brother and I immediately began working on plans to transform the site into a
modern mixed-use development where people can live, work, shop and dine.
As we propose to repurpose it, The Oaks will help Cupertino realize its “Heart of the City” goals by
creating a greater sense of place, enhancing community identity, promoting sustainability and providing
residents and visitors with many enjoyable and memorable experiences.
We have actively engaged the community about our plans to transform The Oaks for the last several
months. To date we have sent two citywide mailers, held nine community meetings, and received input
from nearly 1,000 residents. Using their feedback, along with the input received from nearby property
owners and key community leaders, we have designed a project that addresses the needs and concerns of
neighbors. Our goal is to create a vibrant mixed-use project that Cupertino residents will be proud of and
that the community will support.
As a Cupertino-based company with deep family and business ties to the community, KT Urban is
committed to work with you, our local schools, and the community at large to build the new Oaks project
in a way that further enhances our city’s already-great quality of life.
We look forward to your review of this application and to answering any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Tersini, Principal
178
The Oaks Shopping Center
General Plan Amendment Application
November 16, 2015
Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Section 1: Project Fact Sheet ……………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Project Owner/Applicant …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Project Site ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Project Location …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
General Plan Land Use …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Zoning Designation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Section 2: Comprehensive Project Description ………………………………………………………….. 6
Project Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Site and Architecture ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Neighborhood Compatibility ………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Sustainability ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Green Building …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Tree Assessment Plan ………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Traffic Improvements and Safe Routes to Schools …………………..…………………………………… 8
Transportation Demand Management Programs …………………………………………………………. 9
City of Cupertino Affordable Housing Plan …………………………………………………………………… 10
State Density Bonus Requests ……………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Project Incentives & Concessions …………………………………………………………………….. 11
Development Standard Waiver ……………………………………………………………………….. 11
Maximum Parking Standards ………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Requested General Plan Amendments ………………………………………………………………………… 16
Requested Specific Plan Revisions ……………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Section 3: Project Plans ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Section 4: Summary of Net Fiscal Impact ………………………………………………………………….. 20
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Fiscal Impact – City of Cupertino ………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Fiscal Impact – School Districts …………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
City/School District Impact Fees …………………………………………………………………………………… 23
Section 5: Voluntary Community Amenities ……………………………………………………………… 24
Appendices
Appendix 1: General Plan Consistency Matrix …………………………………………………………… 1
Appendix 2: Specific Plan Consistency Matrix ……………………………………………………………. 5
Appendix 3: Potential TDM Program Measures …………………………………………………………. 8
Appendix 4: The Oaks Parking Assessment ……………………………………………………………….. 13
179
pg. 1
Executive Summary
KT Urban proposes to replace an existing, obsolete 71,254 sq. ft. retail shopping center with a
signature, mixed-use project at the western gateway to the Heart of the City – Cupertino’s key
mixed-use corridor. The proposed mixed-use project includes a 280,000 sq. ft. office building, a
200-room hotel, 270 residential units and approximately 48,000 sq. ft. of retail. The project will
provide both surface and below-grade parking to enhance and maximize pedestrian connectivity
and open spaces. The proposed project will replace the existing shopping center with the
following uses:
USE EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE
Office 17,553 sq. ft. 280,000 sq. ft.
Hotel 200 rooms
Residential 270 units
Retail 53,701 sq. ft. 47,660 sq. ft.
Parking 517 spaces 1208 spaces
The redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Center will help the City of Cupertino meet a significant
number of goals and objectives that are envisioned in the City’s General Plan. The project will
contribute positively to the City’s fiscal stability and improve the quality of life for its residents.
The total annual net positive fiscal impact to the City of Cupertino General Fund and to the school
districts, combined, equals $2,404,000 (or $4,920,000 in total annual city and district tax revenues
before costs). The total one-time impact fees for parks and below market rate housing to the City
of Cupertino and school construction fees, combined, equals $12,870,000.
The project design responds to the surrounding neighborhood, strives to meet sustainability
standards via accepted land planning and building practices, reduces traffic impacts through
street improvements and Traffic Demand Management programs, improves trail and bicycle
networks, provides safe routes to schools and helps the City meet its affordable housing goals.
Cupertino schools represent one of the community’s most valuable assets. KT Urban has met
with both the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District
regarding the project to confirm student generation rates and make sure that the future of
Cupertino schools remains bright, after factoring in the project’s likely new students and its
positive financial impact for the districts.
180
pg. 2
Office
Today’s technology companies require work environments that are sustainable and allow them
to attract top talent. According to Applied Development Economics, the firm that conducted an
office market assessment for KT Urban, vacancy rates in the City are very low, even by regional
standards, and the majority of existing office inventory consists of Class B and C space that does
not reflect current work patterns and employer needs. The project’s new Class A office building
will afford the City of Cupertino the opportunity to attract a headquarters user. The 7-story office
building will be located along the western border of the property in order to maximize visibility
along the Highway 85 corridor, buffer the project from adverse impacts such as noise, minimize
the visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and provide connectivity to future
transportation nodes.
Hotel
The project will also include a 200-room hotel and conference facility. The hotel will also be
designed as a modern, flagship hotel that will generate substantial incremental tax revenue for
the City. The conference facility could also serve as community space for City residents. Hotel
amenities will include a shuttle service to reduce traffic impacts. The shuttle service will provide
site commuters a "last-mile" connection between local employment centers, retail services and
public transit to and from the site location. The shuttle will also provide transportation to local
schools for students who live in the proposed project.
Retail
The retail portion of the project is designed to become the destination for shopping, dining and
entertainment in the Heart of the City. Oriented around a Main Street or Boulevard configuration,
the retail space is internally connected through a network of pedestrian and open spaces, linking
the office, hotel and residential uses. The 47,660 sq. ft. of new retail space is situated along the
ground floors of the residential buildings between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.
Some of these buildings will be designed to create visual interest and invite patrons into the
mixed-use project.
Residential
The 270 residential units (200 units are currently allocated) provide the opportunity for housing
in close proximity to jobs. Residential units will be constructed in four levels above ground floor
retail spaces. The residential units will consist of 200 market-rate apartments in two buildings,
and a third building – located across the street from the City’s senior center – that will be designed
to address the shortage of senior housing in the City by providing 70 senior apartment units. The
senior apartment units will include 40 market-rate senior housing units and 30 affordable or
below market rate units (22 very low-income and 8 low-income).
181
pg. 3
KT Urban will seek to process a condominium map as part of its project development approvals.
The condominium map will enhance the project’s fiscal stability and generate approximately $2.0
million in incremental recurring revenue for Cupertino schools over a 20-year period.
Affordable Housing
The owner recognizes the challenges of finding sites to build affordable housing in Cupertino.
Rather than pay an in-lieu fee, the project proposes to help the City meet its affordable housing
goals by building below market rate units on-site at greater affordability rates than required by
the City of Cupertino’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program.
The City’s BMR Housing Program requires that 15% of rental units be built at below market rate,
60% of those BMR units be built at very low-income level (15%x60%=9%) and 40% be built at low-
income level (15%x40%=6%). The project will exceed the City of Cupertino’s requirements by
building 15% of the units (30 units) at below market rates – 11% of the project’s units (22 units)
will be built at very low-income levels and 4% of them (8 units) will be built at low-income levels.
State Density Bonus
In order to encourage the development of affordable and senior housing, the State’s Density
Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915-65918) and the City’s Density Bonus
Ordinance allow a number of mechanisms to assist a project’s economics and physical
development. The owner will utilize the State Density Bonus Law to address project constraints
typical of mixed-use projects and reduce the number of required general plan amendments.
General Plan Amendment
The City’s approval of the requested general plan amendments will facilitate the construction of
the project and create a signature, mixed-use project that will serve as a model for future
development in the City of Cupertino. Specifically, KT Urban is requesting a general plan
amendment that: 1) increases the allocation of office square footage; and, 2) increases the
allocation of hotel rooms. The owner also anticipates minor revisions to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan as a result of the general plan amendment process.
Voluntary Community Amenities
Consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan Amendment policy, KT Urban is proposing a
number of voluntary public amenities as part of its application. These voluntary amenities reflect
needs identified by the community, based on the owner’s extensive neighborhood and public
outreach efforts over the last several months. KT Urban conducted a series of nine community
meetings in August 2015 with the objective of introducing our project to the residents of
Cupertino and listening to their constructive feedback. Our outreach efforts also included
numerous meetings with the Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union High School District,
De Anza College, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Walk Bike Cupertino, Santa Clara County League
of Conservation Voters, Mineta Institute, Cupertino Rotary, and the Cupertino Chamber of
182
pg. 4
Commerce, among others. In total, the owner is proposing approximately $8 million in voluntary
public amenities.
The project site currently consists of two legal parcels, Parcel 1 (326-27-039) & Parcel 2 (326-27-
040 & 041) per Book 838 of Maps, Page 24-25, Santa Clara County Records. During its project
development approvals, KT Urban will seek to subdivide the property into four legal parcels.
Parcelization is primarily required to meet market-driven lending standards and to phase the
construction of project improvements. The proposed parcel lines will correspond to the mix of
proposed uses (office, hotel, market rate residential and senior/below market rate residential)
and will help ensure the project’s financial viability – as well as promote the City’s fiscal stability.
KT Urban looks forward to working with the City Council, City staff, and City residents to turn the
Oaks Shopping Center into a vibrant, signature mixed-use center.
183
pg. 5
Section 1: Project Fact Sheet
Project Owner/Applicant
190 West St. James, LLC
dba “KT Urban”
21710 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
Project Site
The Oaks Shopping Center
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN: Parcel 1 (326-27-039)
Parcel 2 (326-27-040 & 041)
County Records Size: 8.1 acres
Project Location
The project site is located at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard – the
gateway to the City of Cupertino. Highway 85, Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard border
the project. The Glenbrook Apartments are to the north of the subject property; De Anza College
is to the south; Memorial Park is to the east; and Highway 85 is to the west.
General Plan Land Use
Current Commercial|Residential*
Proposed Commercial|Office|Residential*
Zoning Designation
Current Planned Development with General Commercial|Residential
Proposed Planned Development with General Commercial|Residential|Professional Office
*The site is identified as a Housing Opportunity site with 200 housing unit allocations in the
Community Vision 2040 Housing Element.
184
pg. 6
Section 2: Comprehensive Project Description
Project Objectives
The redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Center will help the City meet a significant number of
goals and objectives that are envisioned in the City’s General Plan and other planning documents,
such as the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The proposed project will help the City of Cupertino
realize its goal for “a vibrant, mixed-use ‘Heart of the City’” and will serve as the City’s western
gateway. Specifically, KT Urban believes that the project will:
Enhance the City’s economic vitality and fiscal stability by strengthening the City’s tax
base through the redevelopment of an obsolete commercial center.
Increase the quality of life for all Cupertino residents through significant voluntary
community amenities for the City, estimated to total $8 million.
Generate significant one-time and recurring revenue for the Cupertino Union School
District and the Fremont Union High School District.
Improve the balance between jobs and housing in Cupertino by employing Smart Growth
land use principles and promoting public transit, walkability and biking.
Provide affordable and senior housing on-site, in conjunction with a voluntary agreement
to be entered in to with the City’s Housing Department.
Mitigate impacts generated by redevelopment of the site by working proactively with the
City.
Utilize sustainable land use strategies, as well as building and construction
methodologies, that conserve resources for future generations.
See Appendix 1: General Plan Consistency Matrix and Appendix 2: Heart of the City Specific Plan
Consistency Matrix to see how the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the
Specific Plan.
Site and Architecture
The proposed project introduces a mixed-use urban village along the western gateway to the
Heart of the City of Cupertino. With high-quality architectural design and building finishes, the
proposed urban village brings a refined design sensibility that ties the site’s buildings together
and integrates them with the surrounding neighborhood. The building layout emphasizes
pedestrian circulation through the site by connecting the site’s office, hotel, residential, and retail
services. Please see the Illustrative Site Plan sheet G.001 for more details.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The project responds to the surrounding site context by providing active retail and commercial
space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and easy pedestrian access from Memorial Park, De Anza
College and the adjacent residential community. The project’s proposed office building is located
along Highway 85 to buffer the hotel, residential and retail uses from freeway noise. The proposed
185
pg. 7
hotel links the office uses and ground floor retail along the project’s main boulevard, providing an
active pedestrian corridor within the project. The proposed residential buildings complement the
residential uses at the Glenbrook Apartments and step heights down along Mary Avenue to soften
the interface with the existing neighborhood. The senior apartments are located directly across
the street from Memorial Park and the Senior Center, providing convenient access for residents.
Sustainability
The project recognizes that we all share a common future and that resources must be conserved
for future generations. The project will strive to meet accepted sustainability standards and
strategies by employing Smart Growth land use planning principles and adopting green building
design and construction methodologies. The site’s location, combined with the proposed land
use plan and a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, will help
combat global warming by reducing traffic and greenhouse gases.
Green Building
The proposed project will achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification, as required by the City.
The design of the proposed project will focus on the following sustainable goals:
Location and Transportation: The proposed project will utilize a compact development
pattern with compatible uses in close proximity to community amenities and retail
services. The site also provides pedestrian access to existing and future mass transit along
the Permanente rail line or within the existing Highway 85 right-of-way (see the TDM
Program Section below). The project intends to coordinate the off-site improvements
design with the potential Stevens Creek Trail connection that is currently being evaluated
within the project area. The project will strive to incorporate segments of the trail into
the project improvements wherever feasible.
Sustainable Sites: The proposed project will provide additional landscaping and open
space, as well as a reduction in impervious surface from the existing shopping center and
at-grade parking lot. Rainwater management will be provided by Municipal Regional
Stormwater Permit (MRP) Provision C.3 to address post-construction stormwater
management requirements for redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 5,000 sq.
ft. or more of impervious area. The MRP requires that Low Impact Development methods
be the mechanism for implementing such controls, designed per the following hydraulic
sizing criteria: Volume Hydraulic Design Basis, Flow Hydraulic Design Basis, Combination
Flow and Volume Design Basis.
Water Efficiency and Conservation: The proposed project will feature native and
drought-tolerant plants that require minimal supplemental water, paired with efficient
irrigation systems to reduce outdoor water usage. High-efficiency plumbing fixtures will
conserve indoor water usage.
186
pg. 8
Energy Performance and Efficiency: The proposed project will feature high-efficiency
heating and cooling systems, hot water equipment and appliances to reduce energy
consumption. The apartment units are designed as compact living spaces to reduce
energy consumption per occupant. High performance window glazing and building
envelope insulation will be provided and air leakage minimized to minimize energy waste.
Materials and Construction Waste Management: The proposed project will be built with
environmentally preferable products with a high-recycled content, sensitive to the use of
natural resources. Material-efficient framing will reduce the amount of framing materials
required, and an aggressive construction waste management plan will reduce
construction waste and promotes recycling of construction debris.
Indoor Environmental Quality: The proposed project will include outdoor air ventilation
to reduce moisture and indoor pollutants. High-rated air filters will reduce particulate
matter within the air supply system, and compartmentalization of residential units will
minimize the transfer of air pollutants between units. Walk-off mats and low-emitting
products reduce airborne contaminants through source control.
Tree Assessment Plan
A Tree Assessment prepared by Hort Science in March 2015 surveyed and documented the
condition of existing vegetation at The Oaks site, taking into consideration the viability of
vegetation in the context of the proposed project’s Site Plan. The arborist performed a survey
and assessment on site, providing a suitability score to the existing trees ranked as High, Moderate
and Low. The configuration of the proposed development does not allow for the interior trees to
remain, given the extent, location and massing of the proposed buildings. The majority of the
interior trees, however, fall in the low suitability category.
The oak trees on-site are mostly located in the eastern side at the interior of the site and present
low suitability based on age, disease, and debilitation. However, there are a few viable specimens
located on-site. The proposed planting palette will seek to integrate and reinforce the site’s
perimeter with additional new plantings of oaks, as a way to give continuation to the character of
the site. There is potential for maintaining a majority of the perimeter trees along the south and
northwest perimeter edges, which include several Evergreen Ash specimens that will provide
character and retain environmental value for the development. Please see the Landscape
drawing sheets regarding the site’s preliminary Tree Assessment.
Traffic Improvements and Safe Routes to Schools
Reducing traffic impacts and improving safe routes to schools are a primary objective of the
project. The project’s design seeks to enhance the pedestrian interface along Stevens Creek
Boulevard by making street improvements and installing wide landscape planting areas with an
“Oak Grove” concept per the Heart of the City Specific Plans. Along Mary Avenue, the proposed
project reduces the travel lane width to slow traffic, provides a “buffer” space between cars and
187
pg. 9
bicycles to enhance safety, augments pedestrian crosswalks and adds street medians and a
curbside planting strip with trees to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment and promote
connectivity to the neighborhood.
Transportation Demand Management Programs
Given that the proposed project will include multiple land uses with varying travel demands, a
multi-faceted Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program is essential to properly serve
the overall development and its user groups. The proposed TDM Program provides measures for
the overall site development, as well as measures related to specific uses. Following is a summary
of proposed measures:
Building entries are located along a well-defined on-site pedestrian pathway and network.
The on-site pedestrian pathway provides safe passage from new off-site pedestrian
facilities to each building and promotes pedestrian circulation to and from the site.
Furthermore, these facilities ensure that pedestrians do not need to travel through
parking areas in order to access the main entries.
Spaces located near the main entrance can be designated as carpool/vanpool spaces. The
placement of these spaces would encourage carpool/vanpool passengers and thus help
to increase the use of carpools/vanpools.
The project will provide improvements for bicycle facilities located in proximity to the
project site. These improvements include new bike lanes, bicycle paths, high visibility
striping and bicycle boxes at intersections. The project site will also include bicycle lockers
and bicycle parking racks and possible electric bike chargers for commuters. These
facilities should be located to promote ease of use for bicyclists.
The project site will deploy a shuttle service that provides all site commuters a "last-mile"
connection from existing public transit to and from the site location. The shuttle will also
provide services for students to local schools who live in the proposed project.
For the office building, a Transportation Coordinator will oversee the entire tenant-
implemented program and service measures. The Transportation Coordinator will be
responsible for disseminating information, overseeing promotional programs and
conducting reporting and monitoring. The Transportation Coordinator will also provide
information to employees, such as transit and bicycle facility maps, transit schedules and
overall TDM information that should be included in employee handbooks and made
available to new employees. Employees who elect to use public transit may be given
partially or fully subsidized transit passes.
See Appendix 3: Potential TDM Program Measures for additional details on potential TDM
measures and programs.
188
pg. 10
City of Cupertino Affordable Housing Plan
The proposed project’s housing program is responsive to all market segments, including market
rate housing, below market rate housing and senior housing. The proposed project will also help
the City meet its regional housing needs as mandated by state law. The applicant recognizes that
one of the most difficult issues for the Housing Department is identifying land to build below
market rate housing. In response to this constraint, the applicant proposes to build the below
market rate units on-site, and enter into a voluntary agreement with the City for the construction
of the below market rate rental units, as stipulated by the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing Mitigation Program.
The project proposes to not only comply with the City’s affordable housing requirements, but to
exceed them. In addition to paying mitigation fees for the non-residential components of the
project, the applicant will build below market rate units on-site and it will build them at higher
affordability rates than required by the City’s program. For example, the City’s BMR Housing
Program requires that 15% of rental units be built at below market rate, 60% of the BMR units be
built at very low-income level (15%x60%=9%), and 40% be built at low-income level
(15%x40%=6%).
The project will exceed the City’s affordability requirements by building 15% of the units (30 units)
at below market rate, of which 11% (22 units) will be built at very low-income levels and 4% (8
units) will be built at low-income levels. According to the affordability gap of the City of Cupertino,
KT Urban’s contribution on affordable housing exceeds the required affordable housing
mitigation fee by over one million dollars.
State Density Bonus Requests
The state’s Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915-65918) and the City’s
Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 19.56) allow a number of mechanisms to assist the project’s
physical development and economics in order to encourage the development of needed
affordable and senior housing. Current maximum density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre
and the site has been identified as a Housing Opportunity site with 200 residential unit allocations.
Since the project includes higher affordability rates than required (11% very low-income units), it
qualifies for a density bonus of 35% for a total of 270 housing units.
The state’s Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915) and the City’s Density
Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 19.56) prescribe a number of permissible incentives and concessions
to make the provision of affordable housing units economically feasible. The incentives and
concessions include, but are not limited to:
1. A reduction of development standards or modifications of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards
approved by the California Building Standards Commission in Part 2.5 (commencing with
189
pg. 11
Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to,
a reduction in setback requirements, square footage or parking requirements such that
the reduction or modification results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reduction;
2. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial,
office, industrial, or other land use will reduce the cost of the housing development, and
if such uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned
development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located; and,
3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City that
will result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reduction.
Project Incentives & Concessions
Based on the provision of 11% of the total units for very low-income housing, the state’s Density
Bonus Law mandates that this project receive two incentives or concessions. KT Urban is
requesting the following two incentives:
1. Mixed-use Project: approval of this mixed-use project is requested with commercial and
office uses, in conjunction with the residential project (apartments, senior housing,
including 15% affordable units). The mixed-use components are essential to make the
affordable housing components economically feasible. In addition, the designation of this
mixed-use project is compatible with the surrounding area and planned uses for the Heart
of the City area.
2. Building Heights: amendment to the maximum allowable height for the buildings on the
site. The Community Vision 2040 General Plan (Chapter 3 Figure LU-1) establishes a
building height of 45’-0” for the Oaks Gateway site. As a project that includes 11% very-
low-income units, KT Urban requests to amend the maximum allowable height to 88’-0”
to top of roof for this mixed-use project at the Oaks site. The project includes varied
heights for the different buildings, as follows:
Office Building: 88’-0” to top of roof
Hotel Buildings: 70’-0” to top of roof
Residential Buildings: 60’-0” to top of roof
The proposed building heights are illustrated in the general architectural drawing sheet G.015.
Development Standard Waiver
In addition to, and separate from, the incentives or concessions, the Density Bonus Law and
Cupertino Density Bonus Ordinance require that the City agree to the waiver or reduction of any
development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the
project at the requested density. Development standards include a site or construction condition,
190
pg. 12
including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, floor area ratio, on-site
open space requirement or a parking ratio for on-site parking.
KT Urban is requesting a waiver of the following development standards listed in the Heart of the
City Specific Plan:
1. Reduction in Building Slopes: Section 1.01.030.A.2 of the “Heart of the City” Specific Plan
requires that the primary bulk of a building shall maintain below a 1:1 slope line drawn
from the street curb line. The proposed Oaks project is requesting a waiver to the building
massing standard to protrude above the 1:1 slope line as shown in the general
architectural drawing sheets G.012 and G.013.
2. Common Landscaped Open Space for Residential: The “Heart of the City” Specific Plan
Section 2.01.010.G requires that 70% to 80% of the residential common outdoor open
space should be landscaped. The proposed Oaks project amends this residential common
outdoor open space requirement to provide 30% of the residential common outdoor
open space to be landscaped (this does not include stormwater plantings and hardscape
area) as shown in general architectural drawing sheet G.014.
3. Reduction in Building Setbacks: Along the western property line facing the Highway 85
on-ramp, the proposed project amends the above-grade setbacks from 44’-0” down to
25’-0” from the property line.
Maximum Parking Standards
Per Cupertino Municipal Code Parking Table 19.124.040(A) for office, hotel, and retail, required
parking for each building use is as follows:
Type of Use Number of Parking Spaces
Office 982 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel 220 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel Conference Room/Amenities 39 Spaces (Uni-size)
Retail 191 Spaces (Uni-size)
Apartment Buildings 540 Spaces (9'-6"x20')
Total Provided Spaces 1,972 Spaces
Sandis Engineering prepared a parking demand assessment to determine the peak cumulative
parking demand for the overall site. The assessment identified the peak demand for each land
use, prepared a time of day demand analysis and measured reductions from the proposed site
191
pg. 13
TDM program. This information was used to identify the combined peak parking demand for the
overall site. Sandis recommended a total of 1,177 parking stalls.
Based on Sandis’ recommendations and reductions available under the State Density Bonus Law
(Section 65915) and the City of Cupertino’s Density Bonus Ordinance, KT Urban proposes a
reduction in the minimum number of parking stalls that is required as follows:
Type of Use Number of Parking Spaces
Office 485 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel 138 Spaces (Uni-size)
Retail 236 Spaces (Uni-size)
Apartment Buildings 318 Spaces (9'-6"x20')
Additional Spaces 31 Spaces (Uni-size)
Total Provided Spaces 1,208 Spaces
See Appendix 4: The Oaks Parking Assessment for the complete parking assessment and
architectural sheet A1.201 for parking matrix and parking layout.
192
pg. 14
Summary of Density Bonus Request
Per California Gov. Code Section 65915 AND Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.56
Project Description: A mixed-use project that includes a 7-story, 280,000 sq. ft. office building; a 6-
story, 200 room hotel; 270 apartment units; and 48,000 sq. ft. of retail, with a two-level below grade
parking garage
Density Bonus Allowances Project Requests
Density Bonus Calculation
Projects qualify based on
percentage of affordable units
(Gov. Code 65915 (f)(2);
CMC Table 19.56.030))
The site is identified as a Housing Opportunity Site with 200
housing unit allocations. The project is consistent with the
Density Bonus Law, with the provision of 11% very low-income
units. The project qualifies for a density bonus of 35% for a total
of 270 units.
The project includes 15% affordable units, with 11% very low-
income, 4% low-income units and 40 senior housing units.
Current maximum density for this site is 30 du/ac.
Incentives/Concessions
Projects qualify based on
percentage of affordable units
(Gov. Code 65915 (k)(2)(3);CMC -
Section 19.56.040.B. (1)& (2))
The project is consistent with the Density Bonus Law, with the
provision of 11% very low-income units. The project qualifies for
two incentives/concessions.
1. The mixed-use components are essential in making this
project economically feasible and to make the affordable
housing components work. In addition, the design of the
mixed-use project is compatible with the surrounding
area and planned uses for the Heart of the City area.
2. Building Heights: The Community Vision 2040 General
Plan Chapter 3, Figure LU-1 established a building height
of 45’-0” for the Oaks site. As a mixed-use project, with
15% affordable units, in order to make the project
economically feasible, the proposed project requests to
amend the maximum height to 88’-0” to top of roof for
the Oaks site. However, the conceptual site plan requires
the following heights:
Office Building: 88’-0” to top of roof
Hotel Buildings: 70’-0” to top of roof
Residential Buildings: 60’-0” to top of roof
193
pg. 15
Parking Standards
(CMC Table 19.56.040B)
Maximum parking requirement for housing development that is
eligible for density bonus:
1 parking space for 0-1 bedroom unit
2 parking spaces for 2-3 bedroom unit
Waivers or reduction of
development standards are
required – in addition to
incentives/concessions.
(Gov. Code 65915(e)(1); CMC
Section 19.56.040.D)
The City is required to agree to the waiver or reduction of
development standards that would have the effect of physically
precluding the development with density bonuses and incentives.
1. Building Massing Standard:
Section 1.01.030.A.2 of the “Heart of the City” Specific
Plan requires that the primary bulk of a building shall
maintain below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the street
curb line. The proposed Oaks project is requesting a
waiver to the building massing standard to protrude
above the 1:1 slope line as shown in the general
architectural drawing sheets G.012 and G.013.
2. Common Landscaped Open Space for Residential:
The Heart of the City Specific Plan Section 2.01.010.G
requires that 70% to 80% of the residential common
outdoor open space should be landscaped. The
proposed Oaks project amends this residential common
outdoor open space requirement to provide 30% of the
residential common outdoor open space to be
landscaped as shown in general architectural drawing
sheet G.014.
3. Building Setback, Reduction:
Along the western property line facing the Highway 85
on-ramp, the proposed project amends the above-grade
setbacks down from 44’-00” to 25’-0” from the property
line.
194
pg. 16
Requested General Plan Amendments
KT Urban requests the following General Plan Amendments in order to create a successful mixed-
use project that meets the City’s goals and objectives for fiscal stability and affordable housing,
among others.
1. KT Urban may request an increase in the City’s existing Office Allocation. The
Community Vision 2040 General Plan establishes a city-wide office allocation of
approximately 500,000 sq. ft. for “major companies” pursuant to Chapter 3 Strategy LU-
1.2.2. The applicant proposes to utilize 280,000 sq. ft. from the “major companies”
allocation on this project site. In the event that the City decides to not allow the applicant
to utilize the “major companies” allocation, the project will require an additional
allocation of 280,000 sq. ft. of office space.
The strong office market in Cupertino lacks available Class A office space necessary to
attract and retain leading technology employers. Increasing the office allocation will
contribute to the character and quality of this mixed use project, not to mention its
financial viability (and its ability to provide community amenities). The applicant believes
it is important to balance housing and hotel uses with office uses to help mitigate traffic
impacts with on-site employment as well as providing employment opportunities for
Cupertino residents so they no longer have to commute out of the City for work.
Additionally, office use supports retail services and provides significant positive fiscal
impacts to the City and school districts without increasing student generation rates.
Further, providing office space in this location helps balance the type and location of
office use throughout Cupertino, thus reducing the impact of office-concentrated uses
elsewhere in the City.
See Office Market Analysis, Mixed-Use Assessment prepared by ADE for an office market
and mixed-use analysis that illustrates the market support for office in the mixed-use
project.
2. KT Urban requests an increase in the City’s existing Hotel Allocation. The hotel market
in Cupertino, as in other nearby Silicon Valley cities, is very strong. This type of use adds
to the financially viability of the project (and thus its community amenities) and helps to
balance the land uses throughout the site, by complementing the office, residential and
retail uses. In addition, a hotel use will contribute significantly to the City’s revenue base
by creating additional Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue and increasing property
tax revenue for the school districts. The planned conference facilities at the hotel can
also be a significant community amenity, with potential partnerships opportunities for
use by local schools, city departments, and community groups.
See City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment Market Study for a summary of hotel
studies that were completed and which illustrate the demand for hotel.
195
pg. 17
Requested Specific Plan Revisions
In addition to the requested General Plan amendments, the project requires revisions to the
development standards in the City’s Heart of the City Specific Plan. These revisions will allow the
City to meet its goals and objectives with minimal impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, help
transition Stevens Creek Boulevard into a more pedestrian-friendly environment, and create a
signature project that will serve as a model for future development within the City. KT Urban is
requesting a waiver of the three development standards under the provisions of the State Bonus
Law and the Cupertino Density Bonus Ordinance (See Density Bonus Section – Development
Standard Waiver). As with the requested concessions, to the extent that waiver meets the criteria
under the State Density Bonus Law and the Cupertino Density Bonus Ordinance for granting such
a waiver, a specific plan amendment would not be required to approve this mixed-use project.
196
pg. 18
Section 3: Project Plans
See the complete set of plans that has been submitted with this application.
SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME
GENERAL
G.000 COVER SHEET
G.001 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L0.000 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.000 LANDSCAPE PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
L2.000 TREE ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION AND SUITABILITY
L2.100 TREE ASSESSMENT VIABILITY AND PRELIMINARY PLANTING
G.002 RENDERINGS
G.003 RENDERINGS
G.004 RENDERINGS
G.005 RENDERINGS
G.006 RENDERINGS
G.007 PROPOSED MATERIALS & COLORS
G.010 PROJECT SUMMARY
G.011 SETBACK WAIVER SITE PLAN
G.012 SLOPE LINE WAIVER SITE SECTIONS
G.013 SLOPE LINE WAIVER SITE SECTIONS
G.014 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS SITE PLAN
G.015 NEIGHBORHOOD SITE PLAN & BUILDING HEIGHTS
CIVIL
C.001 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C.002 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C.003 UTILITY PLAN
C.004 STORMWATER MGT. PLAN
C.005 FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN
C.006 EASEMENT DISPOSITION PLAN
C.0-1 MARY AVE IMPROVEMENTS (WEST)
C.0-2 MARY AVE IMPROVEMENTS (EAST)
C.0-3 MARY AVE TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
C.0-4 STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ MARY AVE INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
197
pg. 19
ARCHITECTURAL
A.000 PHASING PLAN
A.001 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A1.201 PARKING GARAGE - BUILDING PLANS - LEVELS B1 & B2
A2.201 OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
A2.202 OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 2-5
A2.206 OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 6
A2.207 OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 7
A2.208 OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
A2.301 OFFICE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.302 OFFICE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A3.201 HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
A3.202 HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
A3.203 HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 3-6
A3.207 HOTEL - BUILDING - ROOF LEVEL
A3.210 HOTEL - ENLARGED PLAN - CONFERENCE SPACE
A3.301 HOTEL - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A3.501 HOTEL - UNIT PLANS
A4.201 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
A4.202 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
A4.203 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
A4.204 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
A4.206 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
A4.301 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A4.501 APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - UNIT PLANS
A5.201 APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
A5.202 APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
A5.203 APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 3-5
A5.506 APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
A5.301 APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A6.201 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
A6.202 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
A6.203 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
A6.204 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
A6.206 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
A6.301 APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
198
pg. 20
Section 4: Summary of Net Fiscal Impact
Summary
KT Urban retained Applied Development Economics to complete a fiscal impact analysis which
examines the proposed project’s estimated net fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund budget.
Specifically, the analysis reviews whether projected revenues from the project will adequately
cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, parks and recreation, etc.)
to the project’s residents and employees. The results estimate the annual fiscal impact assuming
build out of all of the project’s land use components. The analysis also includes an estimation of
the net fiscal impact of the Oaks retail project in its current underutilized state.
See Fiscal Impact Analysis and The Oaks Commercial Retail Development Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared by ADE.
Additionally, the analysis reviews the annual fiscal impact to the two school districts serving the
project and the City of Cupertino, focusing on a comparison between net property tax generation
overall and on a per student basis. The analysis compares these results to the estimated revenue
target per pupil, as provided by the school districts. The analysis also includes the impact of parcel
taxes paid by the project based on the total proposed number of parcels. This analysis assumes
the housing units would be individual condominiums, though they may actually be used as rental
units.
Finally, this analysis reviews the one-time impact fee payments to the City and school districts,
specifically, for affordable housing and parks.
Figure 1
199
pg. 21
Overall, the result of these analyses is summarized in Figure I, and in more detail in subsequent
pages of this section of the application. The total annual revenue from the project to the City’s
General Fund and to the school districts is estimated at $4,920,000; the net positive fiscal impact
to the City of Cupertino and to the school districts above estimated service costs, combined,
equals $2,404,000. The total one-time impact fees for parks and below market rate housing to
the City of Cupertino and to the school districts for school construction, combined, equals
$12,870,000.
Fiscal Impact – City of Cupertino
Provided in Figure 2, below, is a summary of the significant positive net fiscal impact the project
will provide the City of Cupertino’s General Fund upon completion of the project.
STEVENS CREEK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
Some key findings from the fiscal impact analyses are:
At build out, annual revenues are estimated to significantly exceed annual
expenditures. The analysis estimates the project will result in an annual net fiscal surplus
of approximately $1,104,000 for the City’s General Fund at build out.
Transient Occupancy Taxes comprise the largest General Fund revenue sources,
followed by Property Tax and Sales Tax. The project’s transient occupancy taxes, sales
tax, and property tax consist of a total of 77.65% of potential General Fund revenues at
project build out.
Figure 2
200
pg. 22
New office development at build out generates $200,837 of total net fiscal revenue;
hotel development would generate a net $1,105,000. The office uses account for
approximately 18% of total annual fiscal impact at build out, as the second largest
revenue source after hotel development, which accounts for the majority of the tax
revenue on the new development. Total retail net impact is an estimated of 9% of total
project revenue at build out.
In its current state, the Oaks retail center generates a net fiscal surplus of $115,513 for
the City’s General Fund. This amount equates to about one-tenth of what the new
project would produce net ($1.1 million annually) and only $0.35/sq. ft. existing versus
$3.11/sq. ft. once revitalized.
Employees currently at the Oaks are estimated at 143, whereas the new project is
estimated to generate approximately 1,166 employees.
Fiscal Impact – School Districts
In addition to the positive impact to the City of Cupertino, the Oaks revitalization project will also
provide significant annual positive net resources to the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD)
and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The primary revenues generated by the project
to these school districts are ad valorem property taxes and parcel taxes. Some of the key findings
are:
Overall, the project is estimated to generate approximately $2.7 million in additional
property tax revenue to the school districts on an annual net basis. This figure relates
to net new property taxes paid to the CUSD and FUHSD combined, above the current
property tax payments of $113,000 to the two districts.
The project is estimated to generate approximately $1.6 million, on a net fiscal basis, in
property taxes and parcel taxes above the revenue target estimated to serve these
students by the school districts. School officials estimate that their current annual cost
per student (or base revenue needed) is approximately $8,100 per student, and the
preferred target revenue per student is $12,000 for all services. The number of students
estimated by the two districts for this site at build out is 99 K-12 students. This yields a
target revenue total of $1,188,000 (cost of $801,900), whereas the project will generate
nearly $2,800,000 in property and parcel taxes at build out.
On a per student or per pupil basis, the project is estimated to generate approximately
$28,300 in resources annually at build out. This positive revenue for the school districts
represents approximately a 136% increase over their targeted revenue amount per pupil.
Parcel taxes will generate approximately $100,000 to the school districts annually.
While the current tax measure only requires parcel taxes be paid on single ownership
201
pg. 23
parcels regardless of the number of dwelling units on them, the developer has offered to
extend this parcel tax to all residential units with the provision of a condominium map.
City/School District Impact Fees
In addition to ongoing fiscal impact, the analysis reviewed the one-time impact of capital
infrastructure fees paid by the project in development of all project components. These fees are
paid both to the City of Cupertino and the two school districts based on current ordinances and
state statutes. Graphically, a summary of this impact is provided on Figure 1 on the previous page,
and key findings are as follows:
For the City of Cupertino, the project will generate approximately $4.32 million in Park
Dedication Fees for the City. Overall, the project could generate $5.83 million in park
dedication fees. However, given the project’s significant Affordable Housing Program
commitment with 15% on-site below market rate units, 26% Senior Housing units, and
the project’s adjacency to the large Memorial Park, KT Urban is requesting a waiver of
park dedication fees for the below market rate (BMR) and senior residential units. If
approved, the net fees paid by the applicant will still result in a significant contribution
toward the City’s future park land and improvement needs.
The nonresidential components of the proposed project will result in $7.3 million in
BMR impact fees paid to the City. This fee payment for retail, office and hotel uses is a
significant contribution to the affordable housing fund of the City to meet affordable
housing needs throughout the community.
The project will pay $1.24 million in school construction. This contribution, required per
state formula for each land use type, represents a significant contribution to each school
district for school facility needs.
202
pg. 24
Section 5: Voluntary Community Amenities
KT Urban proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City that includes the
following voluntary community amenities.
DESCRIPTION BENEFICIARY AMOUNT
School
Resources
Cash contribution for construction
of permanent school room
facilities
CUSD $1.0 million
Parcel Tax (requires Condominium
Map on residential component of
project)
CUSD/FUHSD $100,000 per
year; $2 million
over 20 years
Cash contribution for future study
or signage improvements for safe
routes to school
De Anza College
$100,000
Public Open
Space
Cash contributions to the Veterans
Memorial at Memorial Park
City of Cupertino $250,000
Restroom improvement at
Memorial Park
City of Cupertino $50,000
Public Facilities Cash contribution towards the
Cupertino Civic Center
City of Cupertino $1.1 million
Public Art City of Cupertino $250,000
Transportation Mary Avenue Road improvements,
safety enhancements and safe
routes to schools
City of Cupertino $1.15 million
Cash contribution to city’s future
senior shuttle program
City of Cupertino $400,000
Stevens Creek Boulevard traffic
improvements
City of Cupertino $450,000
Contribute 72 parking passes to De
Anza College annually for a period
of five years
De Anza College $32,400
Affordable
Housing
Provide affordable housing levels
in excess of City requirement
City of Cupertino $1.1 million
Economic
Development
Cash contribution for creation of
City office incubator program
City of Cupertino $500,000
Total ≈ $8 million
203
pg. 1
Appendices
Appendix 1: General Plan Consistency Matrix
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GOAL (CHAPTER 3) HOW PROJECT MEETS OR EXCEEDS GOALS
GOAL LU-1
CREATE A BALANCED COMMUNITY WITH A MIX
OF LAND USES THAT SUPPORTS THRIVING
BUSINESSES, ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS AND A HEALTHY
COMMUNITY
Balanced mixed-use project that blends
office, retail, residential and hotel.
Meets “mixed-use village” concept
requirements.
Allocates office space for major
companies, complying with Strategy LU-
1.2.2.
Locates higher land use density along
major transit corridors.
Utilizes multiple modes of
transportation.
Supports and implements Heart of the
City Specific Plan objectives.
GOAL LU-2
ENSURE THAT BUILDINGS, SIDEWALKS, STREETS
AND PUBLIC SPACES ARE COORDINATED TO
ENHANCE COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND
CHARACTER
Integrates land uses that complement
each other and are connected by public
spaces and throughways at pedestrian
scale.
Plazas, parks, and retail with outdoor
dining activate the public spaces.
Implements Gateway concept that
promotes the community identity.
GOAL LU-3
ENSURE THAT PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND
BUILDING DESIGN ENHANCE THE PUBLIC REALM
AND INTEGRATE WITH ADJACENT
NEIGHBORHOODS
Creates a network of connected internal
streets and paths that improve
pedestrian and bicycle access, provide
public open space.
Site plan locates buildings in response to
the surrounding community.
Improves Mary Avenue function and
connectivity with neighborhood.
Below grade parking for entire site.
204
pg. 2
GOAL LU-4
PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF PLANNING
AREAS AND THE GOALS FOR COMMUNITY
CHARACTER, CONNECTIVITY AND COMPLETE
STREETS IN STREETSCAPE
DESIGN
Design of streets, sidewalks and
pedestrian and bicycle amenities are
consistent with the vision for Heart of
the City Planning Area and Complete
Streets policies Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Mary Avenue.
Landscaped buffers along Mary Avenue
provide transition to neighboring
buildings.
Added landscaped medians along Mary
Avenue provide traffic calming.
GOAL LU-5
ENSURE THAT EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND
NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ACCESS TO LOCAL RETAIL
AND SERVICES WITHIN WALKING OR
BICYCLING DISTANCE
Mixed-use village with active ground-
floor retail uses and public space that
creates an inviting pedestrian
environment and activity center that
serves adjoining neighborhoods and
businesses.
Added crosswalks and enhanced bicycle
lanes along Mary Avenue, to improve
pedestrian and bicycle access to site.
GOAL LU-7
PROMOTE A CIVIC ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE
ARTS EXPRESS AN INNOVATIVE SPIRIT, CULTURAL
DIVERSITY AND INSPIRE COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
Incorporates Public Art within site.
Promotes placement of visible artwork
within gateway to the city.
Display local art in community center.
GOAL LU-8
MAINTAIN A FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE CITY
GOVERNMENT THAT PRESERVES AND ENHANCES
THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS,
WORKERS AND VISITORS
Provides land uses that generates City
revenue, and significant positive fiscal
impact.
Provides mixed-use (office, commercial,
residential) in aging commercial area
with reinvestment and revitalization of
sales-tax producing uses, while
providing site for regional housing
requirements.
GOAL LU-9
Provides diversity of office space to
meet business needs.
205
pg. 3
PROMOTE A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY THAT
ATTRACTS AND RETAINS A VARIETY OF
BUSINESSES
Provides diversity of commercial uses
(retail, hotel) to supplement office use
amenities.
Through its mixed-use program,
encourages office development in area
where workers can walk or bike to
services such as shopping and
restaurants, and to provide walking and
bicycling connections to services.
GOAL LU-10
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE COORDINATION WITH
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES ON
PLANNING ISSUES
Provides mixed-use density as an asset
for riders along future VTA line.
Provides connection to regional
pedestrian and bike facilities.
GOAL LU-11
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO LIBRARY
AND SCHOOL SERVICES PROVIDED
BY OTHER AGENCIES
Provides amenities, housing, community
meeting space, accessible for De Anza
College.
Provides safe route to school
improvements on Mary Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
GOAL LU-13
ENSURE A COHESIVE, LANDSCAPED BOULEVARD
THAT SUPPORTS ALL MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION, LINKS ITS DISTINCT AND
ACTIVE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE
SUB-AREAS AND NODES, AND CREATES A HIGH-
QUALITY, DISTINCT COMMUNITY IMAGE AND A
VIBRANT HEART FOR CUPERTINO
Project addresses Heart of the City
Specific Plan, see Heart of the City
Specific Plan matrix.
Rehabilitates aged neighborhood center
and major activity center with
pedestrian-oriented areas with inviting
community gathering spaces.
Improves Stevens Creek Boulevard with
attractive landscape, connectivity for all
transportation modes
Provides high quality architecture, with
active uses along the street frontage.
As a corner lot development, provides
pedestrian and bicycle improvements
along side street Mary Avenue to
enhance connections to surrounding
neighborhood.
206
pg. 4
GOAL LU-14
CREATE A PUBLIC AND CIVIC GATEWAY
SUPPORTED BY MIXED COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL USES (W STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD SPECIAL AREA)
“Mixed-use village” concept at Oaks
Gateway node with residential, hotel
and retail uses.
Applies LEED Silver certification
standards or above, to create world
class gateway architecture and land use
program at City’s western gateway
Provides public facilities, and active
space uses along the street to reinforce
pedestrian orientation.
GOAL LU-27
PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND
ENHANCE CONNECTIVITY TO NEARBY
SERVICES TO CREATE COMPLETE
NEIGHBORHOODS
Provides retail and commercial services
to adjacent neighborhood through
pedestrian and bicycle oriented
connections.
Improves pedestrian and bicycling
access of neighborhood to parks,
schools, and local retail.
Street widths and sidewalk design
complement character of site and
connection to neighborhood.
Provides public access to common
outdoor areas between multi-family
residential buildings.
Provides senior housing in proximity to
senior center, transportation corridor
and commercial retail and services.
207
pg. 5
Appendix 2: Specific Plan Consistency Matrix
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
WEST STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
HOW PROJECT MEETS OR EXCEEDS STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.01.010
DESCRIPTION
Balanced mixed-use project that blends office,
retail, residential and hotel.
Supports and implements Heart of the City
Specific Plan objectives.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.01.020
LAND USE AND ZONING – PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL USES
Retail provided for P(CG, Res) zoning district,
per Zoning Map Exhibit Z-3A.
Residential provided for P(CG, Res) zoning
district, per Zoning Map Exhibit Z-3A.
Residential located above the ground level on
multi-story buildings.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.01.030
BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS AND ORIENTATION
The project requests a General Plan
Amendment regarding the building heights,
extending above the 45’ height limit for the
site. See the separate Density Bonus
Incentive Request.
The project requests a Density Bonus Incentive
regarding the building massing below a 1:1
slope line from the street curb. See the
separate Density Bonus Waiver Request.
Along Stevens Creek Boulevard, the project
provides the 35 foot setback from the edge of
curb.
Along Mary Avenue and the Highway 85 on-
ramp, the project requests a General Plan
Amendment regarding the building setback
from the edge of curb. See the separate
Density Bonus Waiver Request.
Building Entrances are located along the front
façade of the buildings.
208
pg. 6
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1.01.040
SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING
Direct pedestrian access provided from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to main building
entrances.
Below-grade parking accessed from three
ramps, with primary access from Mary Avenue.
Service areas accessed from Mary Avenue,
away from residential entrances within the
site.
Common Open Space provided for Office,
Retail, Hotel, and Residential development.
See drawing sheet G.004 for open area
calculations.
Private Open Space provided for apartment
housing. See drawing sheet G.004 for open
area calculations.
The Boulevard Landscape Easement is
provided along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The building facades are varied and attractive,
with high quality exterior finishes.
The buildings adjacent to residentially
developed parcels are stepped back to provide
a 1.5:1 setback to height ratio.
DESIGN GUIDELINES 2.01.010
DESCRIPTION
Building facades are divided into shorter
segments, in particular along Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
High-quality windows are designed into the
facades.
The contemporary design of the buildings
provides roof overhangs in many locations
along these buildings, in a contemporary
manner.
The residential common open space provides
both landscape and hardscape areas for social
interaction. See drawing sheet G.004 for open
area calculations.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING
GUIDELINES 2.01.040
DESCRIPTION
Paving materials include brick and concrete
unit pavers, and poured-in-place concrete with
integral colors and scoring patterns.
209
pg. 7
Planting along Stevens Creek Boulevard
provides a simple plant species palette keeping
with the “Oak Grove” streetscape theme. See
Landscape drawing sheets.
Planting along Mary Avenue and within site
designed for ornamental and screening
purposes, native with water-wise plantings.
See Landscape drawings sheets.
Fences, as needed, to be of attractive, durable
materials (wood, metal, stucco, or stone
finishes, complementing adjacent buildings)
210
pg. 8
Appendix 3: Potential TDM Program Measures
Potential TDM Program Measures
Transportation demand management (TDM) refers to policies and programs that are designed to
reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips that are made, especially during the
peak time periods of the day when congestion on roadways is at its worst. The concept refers to
a wide array of measures, from telecommuting programs that allow employees to work from
home; to carpool and vanpool programs that encourage two or more people to share their
commute to work; to incentives to encourage people to leave their cars at home and instead use
public transit, or bicycle or walk to work.
Given that the proposed Oaks Development will include multiple land uses with varying travel
demands, a multi-faceted TDM plan is essential to properly serve the overall development and
user groups. The following Program overview provides measures for the overall development as
well as identifies use specific measures that are appropriate.
The below sections provide a summary of potential design measures and programs commonly
used for projects within the San Francisco Bay Area. The Site Design Measures include measures
that are incorporated into the Site Design, whereas Program Measures include measures that are
typically implemented and maintained by the building tenants. An effective TDM program
typically includes a combination of design and programmatic elements.
Potential TDM Measures and Programs – Overall Site
The following TDM measures are recommended to be implemented for the overall Oaks
Development. These recommendations are based on the proposed physical attributes of the site
and buildings, as well as existing transportation facilities in proximity to the site.
Site Design Measures
Building Design Measures
1. Building Entries
Building entries will be located along well-defined on-site pedestrian pathways and
networks. The on-site pedestrian pathways provide safe passage from new off-site
pedestrian facilities to the site buildings and promote pedestrian circulation to and from
211
pg. 9
the site. Furthermore, these facilities ensure that pedestrians do not need to travel
through parking areas to the main building entries.
2. Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools
Spaces located near the main entrance will be designated as carpool/vanpool spaces. The
placement of these spaces will encourage carpool/vanpool passengers and thus help to
increase the use of carpools/vanpools.
Pedestrian Design Measures
3. Pedestrian Connections
Building entrances will be connected to the clearly defined on-site pedestrian facilities
that provide access to and from the project site and new off-site pedestrian facilities.
These facilities will also provide pedestrian access to the De Anza College and transit
facilities along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Bicycle Design Measures
4. Bicycle Parking
The project site will include bicycle lockers and bicycle racks for patrons. These facilities
should be located to promote ease of use by bicyclists.
5. Off-Site Bicycle Facility Improvements
The project is proposing to provide offsite improvements that include bicycle facilities
located in proximity to the project site. These improvements include the creation of new
bike lanes, bicycle paths, and addition of high visibility striping, bicycle boxes and other
treatments within the project vicinity.
Program and Service Measures
The following measures are proposed to be implemented to supplement the site and design
measures described above. These programs and services are intended to encourage alternate
modes of transportation and further reduce the number of single occupant vehicle trips.
6. On-Site Amenities
The project site will offer complimentary on-site amenities such as retail and dining
services to reduce the generation of “single stop” trips.
7. Transit Information Kiosk/Area
The project site will include an on-site informational transit kiosk with an information area
that provides maps and information on alternative commute options to interested
parties.
212
pg. 10
8. Public School Shuttle
The project site may deploy a shuttle service that provides school children transit to and
from the site to local schools. This service would be available to site users and other
nearby residents.
Potential TDM Measures and Programs – Office Building
The following TDM measures are anticipated to be implemented for the office building at the
Oaks Development. These recommendations are based on the proposed physical attributes of
the site and buildings, as well as existing transportation facilities in proximity to the site.
Site Design Measures
Building Design Measures
1. Building Wiring and Telecommuting
The building will be wired to facilitate high speed internet and telecommuting.
Parking Design Measures
2. Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools
Spaces located near the main building entrance will be designated as carpool/vanpool
spaces. The placement of these spaces would encourage carpool/vanpool passengers and
thus help to increase the use of carpools/vanpools.
Bicycle Design Measures
3. Bicycle Parking, Shower and Changing Facilities
The office building will provide bicycle lockers and racks for commuters. The building will
also contain on-site showering and changing facilities for the use of commuters.
Program and Service Measures
The following measures should be implemented to supplement the site and design measures
described above. These programs and services will help ensure that the TDM goals are met by
encouraging alternate modes of transportation and thereby reducing single occupant vehicle
trips.
4. Transportation Coordinator
The Transportation Coordinator will oversee the implementation of the TDM Program for
the office building. The Coordinator will be responsible for disseminating information,
overseeing promotional programs, and conducting reporting and monitoring. The
213
pg. 11
Transportation Coordinator will also provide information to employees, such as transit
and bicycle facility maps, transit schedules, and overall TDM information that should be
included in employee handbooks and made available to new employees.
5. Commuter Shuttle Service
Employees will have access to a commuter shuttle that will provide service from regional
locations to the project site.
6. Carpooling
Employee carpooling shall be encouraged by providing preferential carpool parking, on-
site carpool passenger and driver matching or a peer to peer application (such as
ZimRide), and commute time flexibility. The Transportation Coordinator will also provide
information to employees on various carpool options and incentives such as the
following:
511 Transit Trip Planner
You Pool, We Pay
Enterprise Ride Share Program
7. Transit Passes
Employees that elect to use public transit could be given partially or fully subsidized
transit passes.
8. Kick-Off Event
Providing an organized event displaying and promoting various types of commute options
is an effective way to introduce new employees to non-single occupant vehicles commute
options.
The following are additional tenant measures that could be implemented:
9. Parking Cash-Out
Employers would offer payment to employees using a single occupant vehicles parking
space. This payment could be used to offset the costs of using transit or other modes of
transportation and offer incentive to employees to use such modes of transportation. The
price of the payout would be determined based on tenant rent prices.
10. Guaranteed Ride Home
Employees who elect to carpool or use other forms of transit will be eligible to use a
tenant sponsored guaranteed ride home service. Employers would provide a rental car or
taxi service to eligible transit and carpool commuters when needed due to extended
working hours or emergencies.
214
pg. 12
11. Bicycle Financial Incentives
Employees may be offered financial incentives to commute via bicycle as opposed to a
single occupant vehicle.
Potential TDM Measures and Programs – Hotel
The following TDM measures are recommended to be implemented for the hotel building at the
Oaks Development.
1. Hotel Shuttle
A hotel shuttle may be provided to hotel patrons and would provide transit to and from
the project site. The shuttle would service nearby office facilities, transit centers, and
other locations that may be identified by the hotel.
215
pg. 13
Appendix 4: The Oaks Parking Assessment
The following assessment has been prepared to provide a preliminary parking recommendation
associated with redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Center (Site) located in the City of
Cupertino. The Site parking demand and parking reductions can be found in Tables 1 and 2.
The anticipated parking demand for the overall Site was established using the following
methodology:
1. Land use parking rates for each specific Site use were calculated using data from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition.
From these calculations, a cumulative Site parking demand was determined.
2. Reductions to the cumulative Site demand were identified based on the following
criteria:
a. Internal trip capture resulting from the mixed use nature of the site.
b. Reduction of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips anticipated based on the
proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the Site.
3. Using the reduced Site parking demand, time-of-day distribution data was used to
identify the time period during which each use experiences a peak demand. The peak
demands of each use do not occur concurrently, and therefore it is not necessary to
provide the summation of each use’s peak demand. This is defined as the cumulative
Site peak demand.
Using the methodology described above, a cumulative Site parking demand of 1,246 stalls was
calculated. Refer to Table 1 for additional information related to the Site parking generation
calculation. This stall quantity is based on appropriate ITE generation rates, and reductions
expected to be realized due to implementation of a TDM program and internal trip capture. The
office use is proposing to employ a strong TDM program and therefore a parking reduction of 30%
is forecast. The remaining Site uses will also benefit from the overall site TDM measures, although
the reduction is expected to be 5% for the non-office uses. Refer to the TDM Program for
additional information. The internalization/internal trip capture reduction for the Hotel,
Apartment, and Retail uses was estimated to be 3%. The Office internal trip capture was assumed
to be accounted for in the TDM program reduction, and therefore a separate reduction was not
applied.
216
pg. 14
Table 1 – Parking Generation Table
The time of day distribution of parking demand for each Site use was then calculated to determine
when the daily peak is forecast to occur. Using the individual peak data, the cumulative Site peak
demand was identified. Review of Table 2 will indicate that the cumulative Site peak demand is
forecast to be 1,177 stalls and occur 12pm and 1pm. It should be noted that the apartment use
parking demand was assumed to be 100% throughout the day due to the nature of this use.
Notes:
1. KSF = 1000 square feet
2. Rate per KSF or Units
3. From ITE trip generation equations (9th Edition):
(A) ITE Code 701 Office Building
Peak Demand: P = 2.51*(X) + 26
(B) ITE Code 820 Shopping Center
Peak Demand: P = 3.62*(X) + 120
X = 1000 Gross Square Floor Area, P = Parking Demand
(C) ITE Code 310 Hotel
Peak Demand: P = 1.10*(X) - 59
X = Number of Rooms, P = Parking Demand
(D) ITE Code 221 Apartments
Peak Demand: P = 1.42*(X) - 38
X = Number of Units, P = Parking Demand
Source: Parking generation Manual (4th Edition), ITE, 2010
Land Use Units Quantity ITE Parking
Demand
TDM
Reduction
Internal
Trip
Capture
Total
Adjustments
Adjusted
Use
Demand
Office
Building
(701)
1,000 Sq Ft 280 729 30.0% 0.0% 70.0% 510
Hotel (310) Rooms 200 161 5.0% 3.0% 92.0% 148
Residential
Apartments
(221)
Units 270 346 5.0% 3.0% 92.0% 318
Retail (820) 1,000 Sq Ft 47.66 293 5.0% 3.0% 92.0% 270
Total 1246
217
pg. 15
Table 2 – Cumulative Site Use Peak Parking Demand
218
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:38:22 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
3
8
:
2
2
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.000
COVER SHEET
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
PROJECT TEAMVICINITY MAP
SITE
THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER REDEVELOPMENT
CUPERTINO, CA
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
DRAWING INDEX
OWNER
KT URBAN
21710 STEVENS CREEK BLVD #200
CUPERTINO, CA 95104
P: 408.257.2100
CONTACT: MARK TERSINI
ARCHITECT
C2K ARCHITECTURE INC.
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND, OR 97209
P: 503.244.2100
CONTACT: KEVIN SAUSER
ksauser@c2karch.com
CONTACT/APPLICANT: SAMUEL SANDERSON
sams@c2karch.com
CIVIL
SANDIS
636 9TH STREET
OAKLAND, CA 94607
P: 510.590.3402
CONTACT: AMY TAYLOR
ataylor@sandis.net
LANDSCAPE
PLACE
735 NW 18TH AVE.
PORTLAND, OR 97209
P: 503.334.1630
CONTACT: MIGUEL CAMACHO SERNA
miguel.camacho.serna@place.la
SHEET
NUMBER SHEET NAME
G.000
G.001
GENERAL
COVER SHEET
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
A4.201
A4.202
A4.203
A4.204
A4.206
A4.301
A4.501
A5.201
A5.202
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - UNIT PLANS
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
A5.203
A5.506
A5.301
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 3-5
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING PLAN -ROOF LEVEL
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A6.201
A6.202
A6.203
A6.204
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
A6.206
A6.301
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
SHEET
NUMBER SHEET NAME
(ARCHITECTURAL CONT.)
A.000
A1.201
A2.201
A2.202
ARCHITECTURAL
A2.206
A2.207
A2.208
A2.301
PHASING PLAN
PARKING GARAGE - BUILDING PLANS -
LEVELS B1 & B2
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
OFFICE - BUILDING - PLAN LEVEL 2OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 2-5
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 6
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 7
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
OFFICE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A2.302
A3.201
A3.202
A3.203
A3.207
OFFICE - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 3-6
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
SHEET
NUMBER SHEET NAME
A3.301
A3.501
HOTEL - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
HOTEL - UNIT PLANS
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
DE ANZA COLLEGE
MEMORIAL PARK
MARY AVE
ST
E
R
L
I
N
G
R
D
L0.000
L1.000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
L2.000 TREE ASSESSMENT - IDENTIFICATION &
SUITABILITY
LANDSCAPE
L2.100 TREE ASSESSMENT - VIABILITY &
PRELIMINARY PLANTING
G.002
G.003
G.004
G.005
G.006
G.010
G.011
G.012
G.013
G.014
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
PROJECT SUMMARY
SETBACK WAIVER SITE PLAN
SLOPE LINE WAIVER SITE SECTIONS
SLOPE LINE WAIVER SITE SECTIONS
OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS SITE PLAN
G.015 NEIGHBORHOOD SITE PLAN &
BUILDING HEIGHTS
GENERAL (CONT.)
C.001
C.002
C.003
C.004
CIVIL
C.005
C.006
C.0-1
C.0-2
C.0-3
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
UTILITY PLAN
STORMWATER MGT. PLAN
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN
MARY AVE IMPROVEMENTS (WEST)
MARY AVE IMPROVEMENTS (EAST)
MARY AVE TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
EASEMENT DISPOSITION PLAN
C.0-4 STEVENS CREEK BLVD/ MARY AVE
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
G.007 PROPOSED MATERIALS & COLORS
A.001 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A3.210 HOTEL - CONFERENCE ROOM PLAN
219
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:44:24 AM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
:
4
4
:
2
4
A
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.001
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
0'10'25'50'75'100'
220
22
1
22
2
22
3
22
4
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:18 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
8
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.002
RENDERINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
AERIAL VIEW - LOOKING NORTH
225
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:19 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.003
RENDERINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
MARY AVE VIEW - LOOKING SOUTH
STEVENS CREEK BLVD VIEW - LOOKING WEST
226
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:19 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.004
RENDERINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
RETAIL BOULEVARD VIEW - LOOKING WEST
227
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:19 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.005
RENDERINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
OFFICE/ HOTEL VIEW - LOOKING SOUTH
228
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:19 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.006
RENDERINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
RETAIL BOULEVARD VIEW @ DUSK - LOOKING WEST
229
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:19 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
2
:
0
5
:
1
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.007
PROPOSED MATERIALS AND
COLORS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
APT-RETAIL BLDG C
WOOD SIDING - OAK WOOD SIDING - CEDAR STUCCO - LIGHT GRAY STUCCO - WHITE METAL PANEL - WHITE
APT-RETAIL BLDG B
WOOD SIDING - OAK STUCCO - LIGHT GRAY STUCCO - WHITE METAL PANEL - WHITE
APT-RETAIL BLDG A
WOOD SIDING - OAK WOOD SIDING - CEDAR STUCCO - LIGHT GRAY STUCCO - WHITE METAL PANEL - WHITE
HOTEL
GFRC - CREAM WOOD SIDING - CEDAR CURTAIN WALL GLAZING - CLEAR
OFFICE
GFRC - TAN METAL SIDING - GRAY CURTAIN WALL GLAZING - CLEAR
230
ZONING CODE DATA:
- General Plan Guidelines Community Vision 2040, and theHeart of the City
Specific Plan
- Zoning Reference Title 19
- Land Use Designation:Commercial / Residential
- Zoning Designation: P(CG/RES)
- Site Area, Gross:8.1 acres; 352,836 GSF
- Site Area, Net:343,958 NSF (Gross Site Area - 8,878 SF for
Public Roadway/Public Utilities easement)
- Allowable Density (DUA): 30 DUA, up to a maximum of 200 units
- Proposed Density (DUA):34 DUA, for a total of 270 Units (includes a
35% BMR state density bonus). Therefore, the
proposed density is not a General Plan amendment.
1. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING:
5. AUTO PARKING:
2. HEIGHT:
3. MINIMUM YARDS BUILDING SETBACKS :
- Stevens Creek Blvd (South side):35'-0" from edge of curb
- Mary Ave (East side):35'-0" from edge of curb
- Mary Ave (North Side):35'-0" from edge of curb
- State Route 85 (West Side):44'-0" from property line (eq. to 1/2 ht. of bldg)
- See General Plan Amendments request below. See Architectural Site Plan sheet A.001
for Building Setbacks dimensions.
- Zoning Max Allowable Height:45'-0" Max
- Actual Project Max Height:88'-0" to top of roof for Office Building
- See Amendments/Waivers request below. See Building Code Data for heights of
each proposed building.
4. OPEN SPACE:
- See Open Space Area Calcs Site Plan sheet G.014. No "Recreation Area" has
been designated within this project.
6. BICYCLE PARKING:
- Required Bicycle Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A):
Office (5% of Auto):25 Spaces (Class I)
Hotel (5% of Auto):12 Spaces (Class II)
Apt Buildings (40% units):108 Spaces (Class I)
Retail (5% of Auto):7 Spaces (Class II)
Total Required Spaces:152 Spaces
- Provided Parking for Each Building Use:
Office:30 Spaces (Class I)
Hotel:12 Spaces (Class II)
Apartment Buildings:130 Spaces (Class I)
Retail:20 Spaces (Class II)
Additional (Bike Hub):28 Spaces (Class I)
Total Provided Spaces:220 Spaces
- See architectural sheets A.001 and A1.201 for bicycle parking locations.
7. REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS:
a.Potential Increase in Office Allocation: In the event that the City decides to not allow
the proposed project to utilize the major companies allocation of office space,
the project requests an additional allocation of 280,000 SF of office space.
b.Increase in Hotel Allocation:
The proposed project requests a hotel allocation to provide 200 units on the site.
BUILDING CODE DATA:
2013 California Building Standards Codes & Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.04
- 2013 California Building Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Electrical Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Mechanical Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Plumbing Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Energy Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Fire Code, w/ local amendments
- 2013 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, w/ local amendments
Accessibility
- Fair Housing Safe Harbor: 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1
- 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
1. LOCAL CODES :
2. BUILDING USE AND OCCUPANCY :
Occupancy Groups (Separated & Non-Separated)
- Office Building:
Office Group B
Conference Group A-3, Non-separated
Cafeteria Group A-2, Non-separated
- Hotel Building:
Hotel Units ("keys")Group R-1, Separated
Fitness Center Group A-3, Non-separated
Bar/RestaurantGroup A-2, Non-separated
Conference RoomGroup A-3, Separated
- Apartment-Retail Buildings:
Residential Units:Group R-2, Separated
Lobby/Office:Group A-3, Non-separated
Fit Center: Group A-3, Non-separated
Retail:Groups A-2 and M, Separated
BUILDING CODE DATA (CONT.):PROJECT SUMMARY:
- Street Address: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014
- Parcel 1 (APN:326-27-039) and Parcel 2 (APN: 326-27-040 & 041) per Map 838, pg 24-25
1. STREET ADDRESS AND APN FOR SITE:
- Redevelopment of 71,254 SF Shopping Center (53,701 SF Retail, 17,503 SF Office)
on 8.1 acres site, to provide mixed-use urban village with the following structures:
- Office Building: 7-Stories, 280,000 SF
- Hotel Building: 6-Stories, 123,865 SF, 200 hotel units ("keys"), w/ 3,550 SF
Conference Facility (which could serve as community space for City residents).
- Apartment-Retail Building A: 5-stories, 139,035 SF residenitial, 100 apartment units,
w/ 13,885 SF of ground-level retail. 11,330 parking garage w/ 8 parking spaces
- Apartment-Retail Building B: 5-stories, 96,465 SF residential, 100 apartment units,
w/ 15,710 SF of ground-level retail
- Apartment-Retail Building C: 5-stories, 61,700 SF residential, 70 apartment units,
w/ 12,425 SF of ground-level retail
- Hotel Retail/ Retail Kiosks (3 kiosks): 4,000 SF total.
- Below-Grade Parking Garage: 2-stories, 516,30 SF, 1,200 parking spaces, w/
192 bicycle spaces
2. PROJECT SUMMARY:
8. STATE DENSITY BONUS - PROJECT INCENTIVES & CONCESSIONS:
a.Mixed-Use Project:
Request approval of office use within this mixed-use project.
b.Increase in Building Heights:
Request to revise from 45'-0" to 88'-0" for tallest buildings on site.
9. STATE DENSITY BONUS ASSISTANCE - WAIVER/ REDUCTION OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
a.Increase in Building Massing (Bulk) Above a 1:1 Slope Line:
Request to amend the building massing to protrude above the 1:1 slope line.
See architectural sheets G.012 and G.013.
b.Common Landscape Open Space for Residential:
Amends residential common outdoor open space from 70%-80% landscaped
down to 30% landscaped. See Open Space Area Calcs Site Plan sheet
G.014.
c.Reduction in Building Setbacks:
Request to amend western setback along State Route 85
down to 25'-0" from the western property line. See architectural sheet G.011.
- Required Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A) for Office,
Hotel, and Retail, and Residential:
Office (280,000 SF):982 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel (200 units):220 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel Conf Rm/Amenities:39 Spaces (Uni-size)
Retail (47,660 SF):191 Spaces (Uni-size)
Apartment Buildings (270 units):540 Spaces (9'-6"x20')
Total Required Spaces:1,972 Spaces
- Required Parking for Residential, per Density Bonus Ordinance Table 19.56.040B:
(1) Space per Studio & 1-Bedroom Units, for 222 Units
(2) Spaces per 2-Bedroom Units, for 48 Units
Apartment Buildings (270 units):318 Spaces (9'-6"x20')
Revised Total Required Spaces:1,906 Spaces
- Provided Parking for Each Building Use:
Office:485 Spaces (Uni-size)
Hotel:138 Spaces (Uni-size)
Retail:236 Spaces (Uni-size)
Apartment Buildings:318 Spaces (9'-6"x20')
Additional Spaces:31 Spaces (Uni-size)
Total Provided Spaces:1,208 Spaces
- Provided Parking meets the reduced parking demand of 1,177 spaces for the buildings
per SANDIS' Parking Assessment Letter; see Parking Garage sheet A1.201 for
Parking Matrix and parking layout.
3. BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS :
Story, Height, and Area Limitations:
- Office Building - Construction Type IA:
Allowable Stories:Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 503
Actual Stories:7 Stories, not a "high rise" building
Maximum Building Height:Unlimited per Table 503
Actual Building Height: 88'-0" to top of roof (N.I. stair and
elevator overruns or fall protection)
Allowable Building Area:Unlimited per Table 503
Actual Building Area:280,000 GSF
- Hotel Building - Construction Type IIIA:
Allowable Stories:6 Stories allowed per Section 510.5
Actual Stories:6 Stories, not a "high rise" building
Maximum Building Height:75'-0" per Section 510.5
Actual Building Height:70'-0" to top of roof parapet (N.I. stair and
elevator overruns or fall protection)
Allowable Building Area:Upper levels subdivided per Section 510.5
Actual Building Area:22,000 SF/Story, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to
subdivide upper levels into areas no greater
than 3,000 SF.
- Apartment-Retail Building A - Construction Type VA over IA:
Allowable Stories:4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 503 and
Section 510.2
Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail
Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 503 and Section 504.2
Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and
elevator overruns or fall protection)
Allowable Building Area:24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per
Table 503 and Section 506.3;
Unlimited for Type IA Retail
Actual Building Area:24,540 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide
residential floor levels;
13,885 GSF Retail
- Apartment-Retail Building B - Construction Type VA over IA:
Allowable Stories:4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 503 and
Section 510.2
Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail
Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 503 and Section 504.2
Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and
elevator overruns or fall protection)
Allowable Building Area:24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per
Table 503 and Section 506.3;
Unlimited for Type IA Retail
Actual Building Area:23,400 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide
residential floor levels;
15,710 GSF Retail
- Apartment-Retail Building C - Construction Type VA over IA:
Allowable Stories:4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 503 and
Section 510.2
Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail
Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 503 and Section 504.2
Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and
elevator overruns or fall protection)
Allowable Building Area:24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per
Table 503 and Section 506.3;
Unlimited for Type IA Retail
Actual Building Area:14,440 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide
residential floor levels;
12,425 GSF Retail
- Below-Grade Parking Garage - Construction Type IA:
Allowable Stories:Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 503
Actual Stories:2 Stories below grade
Allowable Building Area:Unlimited per Table 503
Actual Building Area:516,300 GSF
3. GPA PRELIMINARY PLAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS:
- General Plan Land Use Designation:See Sheet G.010
- Zoning Designation:See Sheet G.010
- Scale and North Arrow:See drawings sheets
- Vicinity Map:See Sheet G.000
- Site Area:See Sheet G.010
- Lot Line Dimensions:See Sheet C.001
- Proposed Program:See Sheet G.010
- Density:See Sheet G.010
- Unit Plans:See Sheet A4.501
- Setbacks:See Sheets G.010 & G.011
- Site Plan, Existing:See Sheet C.001
- Site Plan, Proposed:See Sheet A.001
- Existing Buildings on Adjoining Properties:See Sheet G.015
- GPA Requests:See Sheets G.010 & A.001
- Zoning Variances/Exceptions:See Sheets G.010 & A.001
- State Density Bonus Incentives/Concessions:See Sheets G.010 & G.015
- State Density Bonus Waivers/Reductions:See Sheets G.010, G.011 thru G.014
- Preliminary Floor Plans:See Sheets A1.201 thru A6.206
- Preliminary Grading Plans, Existing:See Sheet C.002
- Preliminary Grading Plans, Proposed:See Sheet C.002
- Preliminary Elevations, Proposed:See Sheets A2.301. A2.301, A3.301
A4.301, A5.301, & A6.301
- Preliminary Architectural Renderings:See Sheets G.002 thru G.006
- Proposed Materials and Colors:See Sheet G.007
- Preliminary Building Cross-Sections:See Sheets G.012 & G.013
- Public Improvements:See Sheets C.0-1 thru C.0-4
- Driveways/Parking:See Sheets G.011, A.001, & A1.201
- Loading/Unloading Areas:See Sheets G.011 & A.001
- Parking:See Sheets G.010, G.011, & A1.201
- Preliminary Landscape Plans:See Sheets L0.000 thru L2.100
- Open Space and Common Area:See Sheets G.010 G.014
- Phasing Plan:See Sheet A.000
RESIDENTIAL UNIT MATRIX:
4. OCCUPANT LOAD:
- Office Building:2,800 Occupants(280,000 SF / 100 GSF per Occ)
- Hotel Building:620 Occupants(123,865 SF / 200 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building A - Apts:696 Occupants(139,035 SF / 200 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building A - Retail:463 Occupants(13,885 SF / 30 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building B - Apts:483 Occupants(96,465 SF / 200 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building B - Retail:524 Occupants(15,710 / 30 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building C - Apts:309 Occupants(61,700 SF / 200 GSF per Occ)
- Apt-Retail Building C - Retail:415 Occupants(12,425 SF / 30 GSF per Occ)
- Hotel Retail/ Retail Kiosks:134 Occupants(4,000 SF / 30 GSF per Occ)
- Below-Grade Parking Garage:2,582 Occupants(516,300 SF / 200 GSF per Occ)
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 2:33:11 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
2
:
3
3
:
1
1
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.010
PROJECT SUMMARY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
231
1
G.013
2
G.013
2
G.012
1
G.012
36' - 11"
41' - 6"
29' - 6"
45' - 5"
2 0 ' - 2 "
34
'
-
1
1
"
21' - 4"
2 5 ' - 0 "
TYP
35' - 0"
BUILDING OVERHANG
AND ARCADE
BUILDING OVERHANG
@ LEVEL 3
BUILDING OVERHANG
AND ARCADE
BUILDING
OVERHANG
@ L3
SETBACK PER ZONING
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
MARY AVE
SETBACK
SETBACK PER ZONING
33' - 8 1/2"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
Z
O
N
I
N
G
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5' - 0"
20' - 4"
39' - 1"
46' - 1"
OFFICE BLDG
HOTEL
BLDG
APT-RETAIL BLDG A
APT-RETAIL BLDG B
APT-RETAIL BLDG C
31' - 11"
1' - 11"
6' - 6"
46
'
-
7
"
11' - 7"
36
'
-
0
"
BALCONY ABOVE
24' - 0"
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
A
B
O
V
E
2 0' - 0 "
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
FIRE ACCESS GATE
LOCATION
APARTMENT PARKING - 8 SPACES
LOWER LEVEL
PARKING ACCESSLOWER LEVEL
PARKING ACCESS
LOWER LEVEL
PARKING
ACCESS
EDGE OF CURB
T O P .L .4 4 ' - 0 "
EDGE OF CURB
ED
G
E
O
F
C
U
R
B
9' - 0"
TYP
35' - 0"
7' - 2"
RETAIL
KIOSK
RETAIL
KIOSKS
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
BIKE
HUB
APT-FLATS
BUILDING OVERHANG
AND ARCADE
RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 2:07:13 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11/13/2015 2:07:13 PM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.011
SETBACK WAIVER SITE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 40'-0"G.011
1 SETBACK WAIVER SITE PLAN
0'10'25'50'75'100'
232
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
1:1 S L O P E
1:
1 Slop
e
APT-RETAIL
BLDG A
HOTEL
OFFICE
APT-RETAIL
BLDG C
88
'
-
0
"
291.5'
@ CURB
MARY AVE.
301.5' @ P.L
STATE
ROUTE 85 EL 294.5'EL 297.0'EL 299.0'
70
'
-
0
"
SENIOR
CENTER
(SEE SHEET A4.301 FOR ELEVATIONS)
24
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2
60
'
-
0
"
NOTE: SEE DETAIL 2/G-012 AND SHEET G-013 FOR FLOOR ELEVATIONS
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
1:1 S L O P E
1:1 S
L
O
P
E
APT-RETAIL BLDG A APT-RETAIL BLDG B
MARY AVE.
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
297.5'
@ CURB294.5'
@ CURB
60
'
-
0
"
60
'
-
0
"
EL 296.0'EL 295.5'EL 297.0'
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2
AMENITY DECK LEVEL 2
15'-0"
LEVEL 3
25'-0"
LEVEL 4
35'-0"
LEVEL 5
45'-0"
ROOF
55'-0"
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
LEVEL 2
15'-0"
LEVEL 3
25'-0"
LEVEL 4
35'-0"
LEVEL 5
45'-0"
ROOF
55'-0"
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
GLENBROOK
APARTMENTS
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 2:53:16 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11/13/2015 2:53:16 PM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.012
SLOPE LINE WAIVER
SITE SECTIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 40'-0"G.012
1 EAST /WEST SITE SECTION
1" = 20'-0"G.012
2 APT-RETAIL NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION
233
1:1 Slo p e
1:1 Slope
OFFICE
LEVEL 3
27'-0"
LEVEL 4
39'-0"
LEVEL 5
51'-0"
LEVEL 6
63'-0"
ROOF
88'-0"
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
LEVEL 7
75'-0"
LEVEL 2
15'-0"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
88
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
STEVENS CREEK BLVDMARY AVE
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2
303.6'
@ CURB
EL 299.0'
301.2'
@ CURB
1:1 S L O P E
1:1 SLOPE
HOTEL
LEVEL 2
15'-0"
LEVEL 3
25'-0"
LEVEL 4
35'-0"
LEVEL 5
45'-0"
ROOF
70'-0"
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CU
R
B
L
I
N
E
LEVEL 6
55'-0"
70
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1
PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
MARY AVE
302.2'
@ CURB
295.5'
@ CURB
EL 297.0'
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 2:53:17 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11/13/2015 2:53:17 PM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.013
SLOPE LINE WAIVER
SITE SECTIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 20'-0"G.013
1 OFFICE - NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION
1" = 20'-0"G.013
2 HOTEL - NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION
234
2 0 ' - 2 "
TYP
35' - 0"SETBACK PER ZONING
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
MARY AVE
OFFICE -
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
17,510 SF
HOTEL -
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
15,840 SF
RETAIL -
COMMON OPEN
SPACE
13,706 SF
HOUSING -
COMMON OPEN SPACE
41,956 SF
HOUSING - COMMON
LANDSCAPED GREEN SPACE
10,435 SF (SUBSECT OF
COMMON OPEN SPACE)
OFFICE :
COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 7,000 SF
COMMON OFFICE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 17,510 SF
HOTEL :
COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 3,097 SF
COMMON OFFICE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 15,789 SF
RETAIL :
COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 1,250 SF
COMMON OFFICE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 13,705 SF
HOUSING:
COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 40,500 SF
COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 46,944 SF
COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) REQUIRED = 70% or 28,350 SF
COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) PROVIDED = 30% or 12,245 SF
THE LANDSCAPE CALC DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE STORMWATER RETENTION AREAS WHICH WILL ALSO
BE LANDSCAPED, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPED AREAS WITHIN THE
SETBACK AREA, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE HARDSCAPED/PAVING AREAS.
GENERAL NOTES:
HOUSING L2 - AMENITY DECK, COMMON OPEN SPACE = 7,850 SF
HOUSING L2 - AMENITY DECK, COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE = 4,350 SF
60 SF PRIVATE OUTDOOR PATIO SPACE IS PROVIDED FOR EA HOUSING UNIT.
20 - 30% OF OUTDOOR SPACE IS UNIT PAVERS OR GRAVEL.
OFFICE AND HOTEL ROOF DECK SPACE NOT INCLUDED.
OFFICE
BLDG
HOTEL
BLDG
APT-RETAIL BLDG A
APT-RETAIL BLDG B
APT-RETAIL BLDG C
LEVEL 2
AMENITY DECK
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
Z
O
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
POTENTIAL
BIKE TRAIL
PROJECT REQUESTS TO REDUCE THE 70% LANDSCAPED SPACE DOWN TO 25%,
PER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS ASSISTANCE.
OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS:
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:44:36 AM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11/13/2015 11:44:36 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.014
OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS
SITE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 40'-0"G.014
1 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS SITE PLAN
0'10'25'50'75'100'
235
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:44:36 AM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
:
4
4
:
3
6
A
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
G.015
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE PLAN &
BUILDING HEIGHTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
GLENBROOK APARTMENTS
24' +/-
MEMORIAL PARK
BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM
NEIGHBORHOOD SITE PLAN
FLINT CENTER GARAGE
58' +/-
FLINT CENTER
109' +/-
STUDENT CENTER
35' +/-
OFFICE
88'
HOTEL
70'
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, TYP
60'
APARTMENT FLATS
30'
FLINT CENTER
65' +/-
SENIOR CENTER
24' +/-
GLENBROOK APARTMENTS
24' +/-
MEMORIAL PARK
FLINT CENTER GARAGE
58' +/-
FLINT CENTER
109' +/-
STUDENT CENTER
35' +/-
OFFICE
88'
HOTEL
70'
APARTMENT BUILDINGS
60'
APARTMENT FLATS
30'
SENIOR CENTER
24' +/-
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
MARY AVE
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
S T E V E N S C R E E K B O U L E V A R D
STATE ROUTE 85
M A R Y A V E
236
23
7
23
8
23
9
24
0
24
1
24
2
243
244
245
246
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:44:19 AM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
:
4
4
:
1
9
A
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A.000
PHASING PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 40'-0"A.000
1 PHASING PLAN
0'10'25'50'75'100'
247
BUILDING OVERHANG
AND ARCADEBUILDING OVERHANG @ LEVEL 3
BUILDING OVERHANG
AND ARCADE
BUILDING
OVERHANG
@ L3
SETBACK PER ZONING
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
MARY AVE
1
G.013
2
G.013
2
G.012
1
G.012
SETBACK
SETBACK PER ZONING
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
Z
O
N
I
N
G
SE
T
B
A
C
K
OFFICE BLDG
BALCONY ABOVE
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
A
B
O
V
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2 4 ' - 6 "
T O P .L .4 4 ' - 0 "
LOADING
DOCK LOADING
UNLOADING
LOADING
UNLOADING
HOTEL
BLDG
APT-RETAIL BLDG A
APT-RETAIL BLDG B
APT-RETAIL BLDG C
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
35' - 0"
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
59' - 10"
1 3 0 ' - 0 "
45' - 4"
94' - 0"
66' - 0"
47' - 6"
48' - 6"
45' - 3"
49' - 5"
APT-FLATS
PARKING ACCESS
PARKING
ACCESS
(PASSAGE WAY
BENEATH)
POOL
AMENITY
DECK
BIKE
HUB
CONFERENCE
ROOM
AMENITY
KIOSK
KIOSKS
PARKING
ACCESS
SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.010 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS,
AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA.
1.
GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN
SEE OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS SITE PLAN SHEET G.014 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3.
SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO.4.
SEE SHEET A1.201 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY.5.
SEE SETBACK WAIVER SITE PLAN SHEET G.011 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2.
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:44:23 AM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_mpayne.rvt
11/13/2015 11:44:23 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
SHS
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A.001
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
0'10'25'50'75'100'
1" = 40'-0"A.001
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - CODE
248
G E N -
E R A T O R
R M
S T A I R
E L E V
R A M P U P
R A M P D N
S T A I R
O F F I C E
B I C Y C L E
S T O R
RAMP UP RAMP DN
HOTEL
BICYCLE
STOR RESIDENTIAL
BICYCLE
STOR
RAMP UP RAMP DN
ELEV
STAIR ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
ELEV
BICYCLE STOR
EL
E
V
ST
A
I
R
STAIR
ELEV
ST
A
I
R
EL
E
V
FENCE
HOTEL VALET PARKING - TANDEM PARKING,
26 SPACES PER LEVEL
HOTEL VALET PARKING -
TANDEM PARKING, 11 SPACES PER LEVEL
GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND: NOTES:
OFFICE :485 SPACES UNI-SIZE24/7 / DAYTIME LOCATED AT LEVEL B2,
AND LEVEL B1 BENEATH OFFICE BLDG
HOTEL :138 SPACES UNI-SIZE24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1,
AND LEVEL B2 AT TANDEM PARKING SPACES
ADDITIONAL:21 SPACES UNI-SIZE 21 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
WITHIN GARAGE AREA "A", BEYOND SPACES
REQUIRED PER PARKING ASSESSMENT.
GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND:NOTES:
APARTMENT HOUSING:318 SPACES 9.5'X20'24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVEL B2 (W/ 50 SPACES
UP AT LEVEL B1), AND 8 SPACES
@ BLDG A GROUND LVL PARKING GARAGE
RETAIL:236 SPACES UNI-SIZERETAIL HOURS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1
ADDITIONAL:10 SPACES UNI-SIZE 10 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
WITHIN GARAGE AREA "B", BEYOND SPACES
REQUIRED PER PARKING ASSESSMENT.
FENCE
AUTO PARKING MATRIX
GARAGE AREA "A"
GARAGE AREA "B"
TOTAL:1,208 SPACES
RETAIL BICYCLE STOR @ LVL B1,
APARTMENT BICYCLE STOR @ LVL B2;
20 SPACES EACH LEVEL
12 SPACES @ LEVEL B1 55 SPACES PER LEVEL
15 SPACES PER LEVEL
GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:TYPE:NOTES:
OFFICE :30 SPACES CLASS ILOCATED ADJACENT TO ELEVATORS
BENEATH OFFICE BLDG
HOTEL :12 SPACES CLASS IILOCATED AT LEVEL B1,
AND SEE "BIKE HUB" @ GROUND LVL
SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED
ADJACENT TO GROUND LVL BLDG ENTRANCES
GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:NOTES:
APARTMENT HOUSING:130 SPACES CLASS ILOCATED AT LEVEL B1
AND LEVEL B1
RETAIL:20 SPACES CLASS IILOCATED AT LEVEL B1
BICYCLE PARKING MATRIX
ADDITIONAL:28 SPACES CLASS I28 ADDITIONAL SPACES PROVIDED
AT GROUND LVL "BIKE HUB" @ HOTEL
SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED
ADJACENT TO GROUND LVL BLDG ENTRANCES
TOTAL:220 SPACES
SETBACK PER ZONING
SETBACK PER ZONING
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
Z
O
N
I
N
G
SE
T
B
A
C
K
P
E
R
Z
O
N
I
N
G
PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL
EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL
PROPERTY LINE
EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL
PROPERTY LINE
EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL
PROPERTY LINE
16
'
-
0
"
EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL
3
7
7
'
-
9
"
3
0
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
1
"
1 0 6 ' - 9 "
UNI-SIZE SPACE
FOR OFFICE, TYP
8
'
-
6
"
1 8 ' - 0 "
UNI-SIZE SPACE
FOR HOTEL, TYP
8' - 6"
18
'
-
0
"
9.5'X20' SPACE
FOR APT HOUSING, TYP
9'
-
6
"
20' - 0"
538' - 5"130' - 3"59' - 1"
13
5
'
-
9
"
45
'
-
0
"
86
'
-
0
"
44
'
-
0
"
1 2 ' - 3 "
28
'
-
1
"
T Y P24' - 0 "
7 5 ' - 7 "
56' - 6"
35
'
-
1
0
"
564' - 0"80' - 0"
25' - 3"
4
6
'
-
7
"
3
0
'
-
0
"
6
4
'
-
0
"
TYP
24' - 0"
@ APT
22' - 0"
SPACES
24' - 0"@ APT
22' - 0"
@ APT
22' - 0"
@ APT
22' - 0"
SPACESSPACES SPACES
(ONE-WAY AISLE)
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 12:05:18 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_sams.rvt
11/13/2015 12:05:18 PM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A1.201
PARKING GARAGE -
BUILDING PLANS -
LEVELS B1 & B2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1" = 40'-0"A1.201
1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVELS B1 & B2
0'10'25'50'75'100'
249
Z5
Z4
Z2
Y12Y11Y10Y9Y8Y7Y6 Y13 Y1412Y5Y4
X
Z1
Z3
Y3
REST
ROOM
REST
ROOM
FIRE DEPT
CONTROL
638 SF
MEP
1300 SF
TRASH
2326 SF
LOADING
AREA
A2.301
A2.301
A2.302
A2.3021
2
1
2
ENTRY
EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ
(RAMP BELOW)
45
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
45
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
ELEV
LOBBY
14
5
'
-
0
"
ENTRY CANOPY
STATE ROUTE 85
M A R Y A V E.
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
.
138' - 11"
275' - 3 1/2"
255' - 11 1/2"94' - 6 1/2"
350' - 7"
73' - 10"
123' - 2 1/2"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:55:11 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:55:11 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
SHS
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.201
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVEL 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A2.201
1 OFFICE - LEVEL 1
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
GSF 43,000 SF
6,990 SF
36,010 SF
MEP / LOADING / BOH
NSF
250
Z5
Z4
Z2
Y12Y11Y10Y9Y8Y7Y6 Y13 Y1412Y5Y4
X
Z1
Z3
Y3
A2.301
A2.301
A2.302
A2.302
1
1
2
2
45' - 0"
30' - 0"
45' - 0"
25' - 0"
145' - 0"
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
330' - 0"23' - 11 1/2"6' - 0 1/2"
REST
ROOM
REST
ROOM
OFFICE
79' - 2 1/2"
150' - 9 1/2"
261' - 8"86' - 9 1/2"11' - 6 1/2"
360' - 0"
147' - 8 1/2"
83' - 10"
196' - 2"
36' - 9 1/2"
25' - 8 1/2"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.202
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVELS 2-5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A2.202
1 OFFICE - LEVELS 2-5
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 2 - AREAS
GSF 47,200 SF
866 SF
45,705 SF
STAIRS / ELEVATORS
NSF
RESTROOMS 629 SF
251
Z5
Z4
Z2
Y12Y11Y10Y9Y8Y7Y6 Y13 Y1412Y5Y4
X
Z1
Z3
Y3
A2.302
1
A2.302 2
A2.301
2
A2.301
1
45' - 0"
30' - 0"
45' - 0"
25' - 0"
145' - 0"
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
330' - 0"
REST
ROOM
REST
ROOM
ROOF TERRACE
OFFICE
261' - 8"94' - 6"
356' - 2"
150' - 9 1/2"
79' - 2 1/2"
206' - 1"
73' - 10"
138' - 11"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.206
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVEL 6
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A2.206
1 OFFICE - LEVEL 6
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 6 - AREAS
GSF 34,500 SF
866 SF
33,005 SF
STAIRS / ELEVATORS
NSF
RESTROOMS 629 SF
252
Z5
Z4
Z2
Y12Y11Y10Y9Y8Y7Y6 Y13 Y1412Y5Y4
X
Z1
Z3
Y3
A2.302
1
A2.302 2
A2.301
2
A2.301
1
45' - 0"
30' - 0"
45' - 0"
25' - 0"
145' - 0"
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
330' - 0"
REST
ROOM
REST
ROOM
ROOF TERRACE
ROOF CANOPY ABOVE
ROOF TERRACE BELOW
OFFICE
73' - 7 1/2"
356' - 2"
282' - 7"
150' - 9 1/2"
79' - 2 1/2"
138' - 10"
73' - 10"
206' - 1"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:55:12 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.207
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVEL 7
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A2.207
1 OFFICE - LEVEL 7
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 7 - AREAS
GFA 14,300 SF
625 SF
13,046 SF
STAIRS / ELEVATORS
NFA
RESTROOMS 629 SF
253
Z5
Z4
Z2
Y12Y11Y10Y9Y8Y7Y6 Y13 Y1412Y5Y4
X
Z1
Z3
Y3
45' - 0"
30' - 0"
45' - 0"
25' - 0"
145' - 0"
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
330' - 0"
MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE ROOF
ROOF CANOPY
TERRACE BELOW TERRACE BELOW
A2.302
1
A2.302 2
A2.301
2
A2.301
1
356' - 2"
282' - 7"
150' - 9 1/2"
79' - 2 1/2"
0"
73' - 10"
206' - 1"
73' - 7 1/2"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:55:13 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:55:13 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.208
OFFICE - BUILDING PLAN -
ROOF LEVEL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A2.208
1 OFFICE - ROOF LEVEL
0'10'25'50'75'100'
254
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:19:02 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
1
9
:
0
2
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.301
OFFICE - BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
OFFICE - WEST ELEVATION (STATE ROUTE 85)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
OFFICE - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 GFRC PANEL - TAN
2 METAL PANEL - GRAY
3 METAL FIN
4 CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
5 GLASS SCREEN
6 STEEL CANOPY
0'10'25'50'75'100'
A2.301
1
A2.301
2
1 4
2
14
2
5
3
5
4
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
27' - 0"
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 0"
LEVEL 6
63' - 0"
LEVEL 7
75' - 0"
ROOF
88' - 0"
FF 299'-0" = 0' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
88
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
88
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
27' - 0"
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 0"
LEVEL 6
63' - 0"
LEVEL 7
75' - 0"
ROOF
88' - 0"
FF 299'-0" = 0' - 0"
3 3 CURB @ 303.6'CURB @ 301.2'
CURB @ 301.2'CURB @ 303.6'
255
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:25:01 PM
C:\Users\sams\Documents\14148_Oaks-Office_sams.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
2
5
:
0
1
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A2.302
OFFICE - BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
OFFICE - SOUTH ELEVATION (STEVENS CREEK BLVD)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
OFFICE - NORTH ELEVATION (MARY AVE)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 GFRC PANEL - TAN
2 METAL PANEL - GRAY
3 METAL FIN
4 CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
5 GLASS SCREEN
6 STEEL CANOPY
0'10'25'50'75'100'
13
2
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
27' - 0"
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 0"
LEVEL 6
63' - 0"
LEVEL 7
75' - 0"
ROOF
88' - 0"
FF 299'-0" = 0' - 0"
1 4
2
A2.302
2
A2.302
1
6
5
5
4
15
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
88
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
27' - 0"
LEVEL 4
39' - 0"
LEVEL 5
51' - 0"
LEVEL 6
63' - 0"
LEVEL 7
75' - 0"
ROOF
88' - 0"
FF 299'-0" = 0' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
88
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
CURB LEVEL
2' - 6" = 301'-6" (CITY DATUM)
CURB @ 303.6'
CURB @ 301.2'
256
W
V
U
T
S
R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
546 SF
HOTEL LOBBY
3614 SF
CONFERENCE
ROOM
STAIR
349 SF
RESTROOM
1223 SF
CAFE
120 SF
ASST GM
743 SF
MEP 212 SF
RESTROOM
212 SF
RESTROOM
120 SF
GM
786 SF
LOUNGE
378 SF
WORK ROOM124 SF
STORAGE
301 SF
BAR
148 SF
LUGGAGE
90 SF
CARTS
157 SF
SALES
50 SF
TEL
372 SF
RESTROOM
674 SF
FITNESS
460 SF
MEP
145 SF
SUNDRIES
A3.301 2
A3.3011
A3.301
4
A3.301
3
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
15
0
'
-
0
"
15' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"36' - 0"24' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
345' - 0"
1035 SF
KITCHEN
1650 SF
LOADING
DOCK
2242 SF
BIKE HUB
ENTRY
CANOPY
FLOOR ABOVE
97 SF
STOR
171 SF
STOR
2272 SF
CONFERENCE
LOBBY
EXIT
EXIT
929 SF
HOTEL BOH
1
A3.210
MARY AVE
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
43' - 9"56' - 0"
38' - 2 1/2"28' - 0"
7 8 ' - 4 1 /2 "
73' - 0 1/2"
10
6
'
-
4
"
80' - 0 1/2"
6 2 ' - 5 "
46' - 10 1/2"28' - 0"99' - 9"
87
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:06:57 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:06:57 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
SHS
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.201
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVEL 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A3.201
1 HOTEL - LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
HOTEL GSF 12,980 SF
RETAIL / BIKE HUB
PUBLIC CONFERENCE
ROOM GSF 7,530 SF
2,390 SF
TOTAL LEVEL 1 GSF 22,900 SF
0'10'25'50'75'100'
257
W
V
U
T
S
R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
LOBBY
BELOW
CONF ROOM
BELOW
A3.301
2
A3.3011
A3.301
4
A3.301
3
15' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"36' - 0"24' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
345' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
150' - 0"
695 SF
Room
366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room
706 SF
LINEN
440 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room
240 SF
MEP
366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 601 SF
BUSINESS
CENTER
MEETING ROOM
BIKE HUB ROOF
LOADING / GARAGE ENTRY ROOF
FLOOR ABOVE
ENTRY CANOPY
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
1 3 ' - 0 "
2
8
'
-
0
"
87' - 6"
44' - 0"
28' - 0"56' - 0"38' - 0"
1 5 2 ' - 0 "
6
6
'
-
6
"
1 6 1 ' - 0 "
174' - 6"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.202
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVEL 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A3.202
1 HOTEL - LEVEL 2
LEVEL 2 - AREAS
HOTEL GSF 8,530 SF
PUBLIC CONFERENCE
ROOM GSF 6,070 SF
TOTAL LEVEL 2 GSF 14,600 SF
0'10'25'50'75'100'
258
W
V
U
T
S
R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A3.301 2
A3.3011
A3.301
4
A3.301
3
706 SF
LINEN
366 SF
Room366 SF
Room
15' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"36' - 0"24' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
345' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
150' - 0"
366 SF
Room
367 SF
Room
367 SF
Room
367 SF
Room
367 SF
Room
367 SF
Room
699 SF
Room
438 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room
240 SF
MEP
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 366 SF
Room 316 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
242 SF
MEP
366 SF
Room
502 SF
Room366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
366 SF
Room
1
A3.501
2
A3.501
Room
714.35 SF
Room
366 SF
CORRIDOR
1 3 ' - 0 "
2
8
'
-
0
"
188' - 6"
180' - 0"
1 5 2 ' - 0 "
1 6 1 ' - 0 "
66' - 6"
6
6
'
-
6
"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.203
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN -
LEVELS 3-6
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A3.203
1 HOTEL - LEVELS 3-6
LEVEL 3-6 - AREAS
HOTEL GSF 22,300 SF
0'10'25'50'75'100'
259
W
V
U
T
S
R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ELEVATOR
MACHINE
ROOM / MEP
ROOF
STAIR TO ROOF
MECH SCREEN, TYP
15' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"36' - 0"24' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
345' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
150' - 0"
ROOF
ROOF
A3.301
2
A3.3011
A3.301
4
A3.301
3
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.207
HOTEL - BUILDING PLAN -
ROOF LEVEL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A3.207
1 HOTEL - ROOF LEVEL
0'10'25'50'75'100'
260
U
T
S
9 10 11 12
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
3614 SF
CONFERENCE
ROOM
171 SF
STOR
2272 SF
CONFERENCE
LOBBY
212 SF
RESTROOM
212 SF
RESTROOM
97 SF
STOR
EXIT
FLOOR ABOVE
5' - 0"5' - 0"
22' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 6"5' - 0"49' - 6"
5' - 0"35' - 6"10' - 6"5' - 6"
44' - 0"
24' - 0"
3' - 6"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:06:58 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.210
HOTEL - ENLARGED PLAN -
CONFERENCE SPACE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/8" = 1'-0"A3.210
1 ENLARGED PLAN - CONFERENCE ROOM
0'5'15'35'
261
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:30:15 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
3
0
:
1
5
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.301
HOTEL - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
HOTEL - SOUTH ELEVATION (STEVENS CREEK BLVD)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
HOTEL - NORTH ELEVATION (MARY AVE)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
HOTEL - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
HOTEL - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
LEVEL 6
55' - 0"
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 GFRC - CREAM
2 CEDAR WOOD PANEL
4 ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
5 METAL PANEL
6 METAL SCREEN
0'10'25'50'75'100'
ROOF
65'- 0"
FF 297' = 0' - 0"
A3.301
1
A3.301
2
A3.301
3
A3.301
4
PARAPET
70'- 0"
2 4
1 42 5
6
1 42 5
6
615 2 46 15
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
70
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
LEVEL 6
55' - 0"
ROOF
65'- 0"
FF 297' = 0' - 0"
PARAPET
70'- 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
70
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
LEVEL 6
55' - 0"
ROOF
65'- 0"
FF 297' = 0' - 0"
PARAPET
70'- 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
70
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
LEVEL 6
55' - 0"
ROOF
65'- 0"
FF 297' = 0' - 0"
PARAPET
70'- 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
70
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
CURB @ 302.2'CURB @ 295.5'
CURB @ 302.2'CURB @ 295.5'
CURB @ 295.5'CURB @ 302.2'
262
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
107 SE WASHINGTON ST
SUITE 740
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:07:00 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Hotel_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:07:00 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT Urban
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A3.501
HOTEL - UNIT PLANS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/4" = 1'-0"A3.501
1 HOTEL UNIT LAYOUT 1
1/4" = 1'-0"A3.501
2 HOTEL UNIT LAYOUT 2
263
P O N M L K J I H G F
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
Q
2.6
1.6
40
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
1555 SF
RETAIL
1540 SF
RETAIL
1301 SF
RETAIL
1623 SF
RETAIL
1623 SF
RETAIL
1559 SF
RETAIL
889 SF
LOBBY
1553 SF
RETAIL
1536 SF
RETAIL
193 SF
OFFICE
MAIL
PASSAGEWAY
TRASH/LOADING
MECH
772 SF
RESTROOM
712 SF
RESTROOM
992 SF
LOBBY
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
580 SF
1 BR
CORRIDOR
12160 SF
PARKING
A4.3014
A4.301 3
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
30
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
26
'
-
0
"
29
'
-
0
"
15
1
'
-
0
"
14
2
'
-
0
"
TYP
10' - 0"
TYP
20' - 0"
30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"9' - 8"29' - 11"30' - 5"
21' - 8"21' - 10"
26' - 4"
18' - 2"
32' - 6"
26' - 0"
34' - 0"
MARY AVE.
25' - 0"
320' - 0"
179' - 0"
58' - 0"
56' - 0"
7' - 0"
40' - 0"
48' - 0"
117' - 0"
277' - 0"
2' - 0"
10' - 0"
215' - 0"
43' - 4"
30' - 0"90' - 0"
299' - 0"
RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:38 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:38 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.201
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A4.201
1 APT-RETAIL BLDG A - LEVEL 1
RAMP DN
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
RETAIL
APT
15,446
13,148
12,598
2,304
PARKING 12,134 1,600
0'10'25'50'75'100'
264
P O N M L K J I H G F
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
Q
2.6
1.6
RESTROOM
RESTROOM
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
1939 SF
FITNESS
CENTER 607 SF
STUDIO
859 SF
1 BR
1011 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
808 SF
1 BR
1022 SF
1 BR
903 SF
1 BR
MEP
1394 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
633 SF
STUDIO
832 SF
1 BR
605 SF
1 BR916 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
550 SF
STUDIO
1689 SF
CORRIDOR
1300 SF
CORRIDOR
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
575 SF
1 BR
580 SF
1 BR
STAIR
1
A4.501
4
A4.501
2
A4.5013
A4.501
956 SF
1 BR 1130 SF
2 BR
A4.3014A4.301 3
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
26' - 0"
29' - 0"
151' - 0"
305' - 0"
276' - 9"
142' - 0"
28' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"20' - 0"44' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"14' - 0"
23' - 0"
37' - 0"
32' - 1"31' - 11"33' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"29' - 7 1/2"28' - 4 1/2"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
5' - 7"
21' - 4"
5' - 10"
10' - 0"
1050 SF
LAP POOL
95 SF
SPA/ HOT TUB
356 SF
LOUNGE
95 SF
SPA/ HOT TUB
414 SF
LOUNGE
AMENITY DECK
8' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 8"32' - 4"
5' - 0"
14' - 0"
86' - 8 3/4"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"9' - 8"30' - 4"30' - 0"
54' - 0"7' - 1 1/2"18' - 10 1/2"
6' - 6"
21' - 8"
40' - 4"
37' - 0"
23' - 0"
20' - 0"
320' - 0"
20' - 0"
30' - 8"
40' - 4"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
215' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:38 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:38 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.202
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A4.202
1 APT-RETAIL BLDG A - LEVEL 2
LEVEL 2 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 42,983 25,790
0'10'25'50'75'100'
265
P O N M L K J I H G F
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
Q
2.6
1.6
745 SF
1 BR892 SF
1 BR
1011 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
859 SF
1 BR
1011 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
808 SF
1 BR
1022 SF
1 BR
903 SF
1 BR
MEP
1394 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
633 SF
STUDIO
832 SF
1 BR
956 SF
1 BR 1130 SF
2 BR
916 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1256 SF
2 BR
CORRIDOR
(ROOF BELOW)
A4.3014A4.301 3
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
305' - 0"
80' - 0"
80' - 0"
23' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"20' - 0"44' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"14' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 8"27' - 4"
32' - 1"31' - 11"33' - 0"28' - 0"29' - 7 1/2"28' - 4 1/2"28' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
13' - 11"
19' - 10"
22' - 6"
36' - 5 1/2"
14' - 0"
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"
320' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
26' - 0"
29' - 0"
215' - 0"
305' - 0"20' - 0"
8' - 0"
2' - 0"
12' - 0"
43' - 0"
37' - 0"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
5' - 0"5' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:39 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:39 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.203
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A4.203
1 APT-RETAIL BLDG A - LEVEL 3
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 26,818 20,165
0'10'25'50'75'100'
266
P O N M L K J I H G F
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
Q
2.6
1.6
745 SF
1 BR892 SF
1 BR
1011 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
859 SF
1 BR
1011 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
808 SF
1 BR
1022 SF
1 BR
903 SF
1 BR
MEP
1394 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
633 SF
STUDIO
832 SF
1 BR
956 SF
1 BR 1130 SF
2 BR
916 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1256 SF
2 BR
CORRIDOR A4.3014
A4.301 3
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
305' - 0"
94' - 0"80' - 0"
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"
320' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
26' - 0"
29' - 0"
215' - 0"
28' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"20' - 0"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
44' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"14' - 0"8' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 8"32' - 4"
2' - 0"
12' - 0"
43' - 0"
37' - 0"
28' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"28' - 0"29' - 7 1/2"28' - 4 1/2"32' - 1"31' - 11"33' - 0"
305' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:40 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:40 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.204
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A4.204
1 APT-RETAIL BLDG A - LEVELS 4 & 5
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 26,818 20,165
0'10'25'50'75'100'
267
P O N M L K J I H G F
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
Q
2.6
1.6
A4.3014A4.301 3
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
305' - 0"
80' - 0"
80' - 0"
ELEVATOR
OVERRUN
STAIR TO ROOF
RTU MECH
SCREEN,
TYP
RTU MECH
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"
320' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
26' - 0"
29' - 0"
215' - 0"
118' - 0"94' - 0"93' - 0"
122' - 0"86' - 0"97' - 0"
14' - 0"
14' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:40 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:40 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.206
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A4.206
1 APT-RETAIL BLDG A - ROOF LEVEL
0'10'25'50'75'100'
268
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:24:48 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
2
4
:
4
8
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.301
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - SOUTH ELEVATION (RETAIL BLVD)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - NORTH ELEVATION (MARY AVE)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A - EAST ELEVATION A
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
15
'
-
0
"
0'10'25'50'75'100'
GROUND LEVEL
FF 294.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 295.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
59
'
-
6
"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 296.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 295.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 METAL PANEL FINISH
2 HORIZONTAL TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD
SIDING - SEE G.007 FOR COLORS
3 GRAY STUCCO FINISH
4 THIN BRICK VENEER - BLACK
5 THIN BRICK VENEER - GRAY
6 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - GRAY
7 SECTIONAL STOREFRONT DOOR SYSTEM @
RETAIL - GRAY
8 WOOD STOREFRONT SYSTEM
9 STOREFRONT SYSTEM WITH CONCEALED
MULLIONS
10ALUMINUM GARAGE DOOR - GRAY
11STEEL ENTRY CANOPY
12ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM
13STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND CABLE
WIRE GUARDRAIL
14STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND GLASS
GUARDRAIL
15ACCENT COLOR @ METAL PANELS
16ELEVATOR OVERRUN @ ROOF
2
2
2 2
14
14
1314
4
4
7
6
7 2
9
6
A4.301
1
A4.301
2
A4.301
3
A4.301
4
13
1314
12
12
12 12
1 3
13
1
2
15
5
5
CURB @
294.2'
CURB @
296.2'
CURB @
294.7'
CURB @
293.9'
CURB @
294.7'CURB @
294.2'
CURB @
296.2'CURB @
293.9'
269
W/D
REFDW
RE
F
DW
W/
D
RE
F
DW
W/D
RE
F
DW
W/D
RE
F
DW
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
CLOSET
CLOSET
BIKE
RACK
BATHROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
CLOSET
BATHROOM KITCHEN / DINING
LIVING ROOM
BI
K
E
RA
C
K
CLOSET
CLOSET
BATHROOM
BEDROOM LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN / DINING
BEDROOM
CL
O
S
E
T
BATHROOM
BATHROOM
BEDROOM
LIVINGROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
CLOSET
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:41 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:41 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A4.501
APT-RETAIL BUILDING A -
UNIT PLANS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/4" = 1'-0"A4.501
2 UNIT - 1 BR 892 SF
1/4" = 1'-0"A4.501
1 UNIT - 1 BR FLAT 574 SF
1/4" = 1'-0"A4.501
4 UNIT - 2 BR 1129 SF
1/4" = 1'-0"A4.501
3 UNIT - STUDIO 606 SF
GENERAL NOTES - UNIT PLANS
UNIT PLANS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL UNIT PLANS THROUGHOUT
APARTMENT BUILDINGS
1.
270
P
13
O N M L K J I H G F
12
10
9.5
9
8
Q
11
1825 SF
RETAIL
1967 SF
RETAIL
959 SF
RETAIL
1391 SF
RETAIL
783 SF
LOBBY
MAIL STORAGE
130 SF
OFFICE
142 SF
OFFICE
1856 SF
RETAIL
1663 SF
RETAIL
1853 SF
RETAIL
966 SF
RETAIL
1112 SF
RETAIL
MEP
STAIR -
PARKING
PS
618 SF
LOBBY
904 SF
RETAIL
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
1
2
4
3
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
66' - 0"
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
49' - 0"143' - 0"
299' - 0"
60' - 0"36' - 0"
96' - 0"11' - 0"
11' - 0"
192' - 0"
66' - 0"
295' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
135' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:42 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:42 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A5.201
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A5.201
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG B - LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
RETAIL
APT
14,493
2,925
14,493
0'10'25'50'75'100'
271
P
13
O N M L K J I H G
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
Q
11
1010 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
601 SF
STUDIO
775 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1131 SF
2 BR
1010 SF
2 BR
749 SF
1 BR
755 SF
STUDIO 644 SF
STUDIO
808 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
745 SF
1 BR
635 SF
1 BR
565 SF
STUDIO
MEP
843 SF
1 BR
763 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
966 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1154 SF
2 BR
CORRIDOR
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
1
2
4
3
80' - 0"
27' - 11 1/2"22' - 0"26' - 6"15' - 6 1/2"
5' - 11 1/2"
26' - 0"28' - 4 1/2"26' - 0"23' - 6 1/2"18' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"33' - 0 1/2"
19' - 11 1/2"18' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"32' - 7 1/2"35' - 11 1/2"26' - 0"32' - 0 1/2"27' - 6 1/2"26' - 0"18' - 0"16' - 0 1/2"
3' - 0"
37' - 0"
40' - 0"
30' - 9"
5' - 9"
10' - 0"
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
295' - 0"
305' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
80' - 0"
3' - 0"
34' - 0"
23' - 0"
18' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
12' - 0"
2' - 0"
12' - 0"
94' - 0"
94' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
135' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:42 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:42 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A5.202
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A5.202
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG B - LEVEL 2
LEVEL 2 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 25,640 20,290
0'10'25'50'75'100'
272
P
13
O N M L K J I H G
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
Q
11
1010 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
601 SF
STUDIO
775 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
892 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1131 SF
2 BR
565 SF
STUDIO
635 SF
1 BR
745 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
808 SF
1 BR
644 SF
STUDIO
755 SF
STUDIO
749 SF
1 BR
1010 SF
2 BR
843 SF
1 BR
763 SF
1 BR
892 SF
1 BR
1154 SF
2 BR
892 SF
1 BR
966 SF
1 BR
MEP
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
1
2
4
3
80' - 0"
27' - 6 1/2"26' - 0"18' - 0"16' - 0 1/2"
40' - 0"
40' - 0"
27' - 11 1/2"22' - 0"26' - 6"15' - 6 1/2"26' - 0"28' - 4 1/2"26' - 0"
35' - 11 1/2"26' - 0"32' - 0 1/2"
13' - 11"
32' - 0"
19' - 11 1/2"18' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"32' - 7 1/2"
3' - 0"
34' - 0"
23' - 0"
18' - 0"
2' - 0"
23' - 6 1/2"18' - 0"26' - 0"26' - 0"32' - 7 1/2"
36' - 5 1/2"
80' - 0"
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
295' - 0"
2' - 0"
12' - 0"
94' - 0"
5' - 11 1/2"
5' - 0"5' - 0"
305' - 0"
305' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
135' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:43 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:43 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A5.203
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 3-5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A5.203
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG B - LEVELS 3-5
LEVEL 3-5 - AREAS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 25,640 20,290
0'10'25'50'75'100'
273
P
13
O N M L K J I H G
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
Q
11
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
A5.201
1
2
4
3
80' - 0"
ELEVATOR
OVERRUN
STAIR TO ROOF
RTU MECH
SCREEN,
TYP
RTU MECH
25' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"
295' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
135' - 0"
92' - 0"
88' - 0"94' - 0"
86' - 0"127' - 0"
123' - 0"
80' - 0"
14' - 0"
14' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:43 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:43 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A5.206
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B -
BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A5.206
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG B - ROOF LEVEL
0'10'25'50'75'100'
274
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:24:48 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
2
4
:
4
8
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A5.301
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B -
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING B - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
GROUND LEVEL
FF 297.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 295.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 297.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 295.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
0'10'25'50'75'100'
13
A5.301
2
A5.301
1
A5.301
3
A5.301
4
2
2
2
2
7
7
12
9
1413
14
1216
16
16
16
10
10
12
8
8 9
128
1314
6
11
11
12
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 METAL PANEL FINISH
2 HORIZONTAL TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD
SIDING - SEE G.007 FOR COLORS
3 GRAY STUCCO FINISH
4 THIN BRICK VENEER - BLACK
5 THIN BRICK VENEER - GRAY
6 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - GRAY
7 SECTIONAL STOREFRONT DOOR SYSTEM @
RETAIL - GRAY
8 WOOD STOREFRONT SYSTEM
9 STOREFRONT SYSTEM WITH CONCEALED
MULLIONS
10ALUMINUM GARAGE DOOR - GRAY
11STEEL ENTRY CANOPY
12ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM
13STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND CABLE
WIRE GUARDRAIL
14STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND GLASS
GUARDRAIL
15ACCENT COLOR @ METAL PANELS
16ELEVATOR OVERRUN @ ROOF
3
1
1
13
1
CURB @
296.8'
CURB @
294.4'
CURB @
301.2'
CURB @
296.8'
275
13
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
E
11
D C B A
1474 SF
RETAIL
1196 SF
RETAIL
PASSAGEWAY
132 SF
OFFICE
141 SF
OFFICE
1488 SF
LOBBY
673 SF
AMENITY
536 SF
BOH
PASSAGEWAY
2400 SF
RETAIL
1683 SF
RETAIL
1322 SF
RETAIL
1330 SF
RETAIL
1149 SF
RETAIL
MAIL
A6.301 4
A6.3013
A 6 .3 0 1
2
A6.301
1
1044 SF
RETAIL
180' - 7"
12' - 0"
8' - 0"
27' - 1 1/2"
21' - 0"
7' - 0"
31' - 5 1/2"
2
6
'
-
1
1
"
7
'
-
0
"
4
6
'
-
8
1
/
2
"
10' - 6 1/2"
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
STEVENNS CREEK BLVD
117' - 6 1/2"
8
0
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
32' - 4"
44' - 8"
5' - 4"
24' - 8"
27' - 7"
46' - 0"
28' - 10"
5 7 ' - 3 "
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
205' - 0"
1' - 6"22' - 6"77' - 6"2' - 6"
104' - 0"
25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"
100' - 0"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:45 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:45 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.201
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A6.201
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG C - LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1 - AREA CALCS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
RETAIL
APT
11,577
3,822
11,577
0'10'25'50'75'100'
276
13
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
E
11
D C B A
980 SF
2 BR
664 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
601 SF
STUDIO
MEP
551 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
688 SF
1 BR
985 SF
2 BR
985 SF
2 BR
588 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
645 SF
1 BR
608 SF
STUDIO
714 SF
1 BR
569 SF
STUDIO
80' - 0"
175' - 7 1/2"
8 0 ' - 0 "
8
0
'
-
6
"
118' - 6 1/2"
26' - 9 1/2"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
27' - 2 1/2"
40' - 0"40' - 0"
26' - 4 1/2"
24' - 11"
18' - 0"
36' - 0"
12' - 10"
8
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
2
5
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
2 5 ' - 6 "
3 0 ' - 0 "
2 4 ' - 6 "
1
5
'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
3
6
'
-
6
"
5' - 10"
10' - 0"
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
A6.301 4 A6.3013
A 6 .3 0 1
2
A6.301
1
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
205' - 0"
25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"
100' - 0"
7
0
'
-
0
"
108' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:45 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:45 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.202
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A6.202
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG C - LEVEL 2
LEVEL 2 - AREA CALCS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 15,988 12,270
0'10'25'50'75'100'
277
13
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
E
11
D C B A
980 SF
2 BR
608 SF
STUDIO
664 SF
1 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
714 SF
1 BR
551 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
688 SF
1 BR
985 SF
2 BR
985 SF
2 BR
588 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
569 SF
STUDIO
645 SF
1 BR
601 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
MEP
A6.301
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
A6.301 4
A6.3013
A 6 .3 0 1
2
A6.301
1
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
205' - 0"
25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"
100' - 0"
1
5
'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
3
6
'
-
6
"
7
0
'
-
0
"
80' - 0"
8 0 ' - 0 "
118' - 6 1/2"
26' - 9 1/2"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
27' - 2 1/2"
40' - 0"40' - 0"
26' - 4 1/2"
24' - 11"
18' - 0"
36' - 0"
12' - 10"
8
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
2
5
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
2 5 ' - 6 "
3 0 ' - 0 "
2 4 ' - 6 "
108' - 0"
8
0
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.203
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVEL 3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A6.203
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG C - LEVEL 3
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 2 - AREA CALCS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 15,988 12,270
278
13
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
E
11
D C B A
MEP
1254 SF
2 BR
1105 SF
2 BR
607 SF
STUDIO
714 SF
1 BR
551 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
688 SF
1 BR
985 SF
2 BR
985 SF
2 BR
588 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
569 SF
STUDIO
645 SF
1 BR
601 SF
STUDIO
607 SF
STUDIO
A6.301 4
A6.3013
A 6 .3 0 1
2
A6.301
1
80' - 0"
8 0 ' - 0 "
118' - 6 1/2"
26' - 9 1/2"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
27' - 2 1/2"
40' - 0"40' - 0"
26' - 4 1/2"
24' - 11"
18' - 0"
36' - 0"
12' - 10"
108' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
205' - 0"
25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"
100' - 0"
8
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
2
5
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
8
0
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.204
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING PLAN - LEVELS 4 & 5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A6.204
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG C - LEVELS 4 & 5
0'10'25'50'75'100'
LEVEL 2 - AREA CALCS
NAME GSF NET
RENTABLE
SF
APT 15,988 12,270
279
13
F
12
10
9.5
9
8
7
6.5
5.5
E
11
D C B A
80' - 0"
108' - 0"
7
0
'
-
0
"
8 0 ' - 0 "
8
0
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
118' - 6 1/2"
ELEVATOR
OVERRUN
STAIR TO ROOF
RTU MECH
SCREEN,
TYP
RTU MECH
A6.301 4
A6.3013
A 6 .3 0 1
2
A6.301
1
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
25' - 0"
15' - 0"
30' - 0"
205' - 0"
25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"
100' - 0"
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
C:\Users\mpak\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpak.rvt
11/13/2015 11:29:46 AM
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.206
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
1/16" = 1'-0"A6.206
1 APT - RETAIL BLDG C - ROOF LEVEL
0'10'25'50'75'100'
280
REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER
RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT
TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K
ARCHITECTURE LLC.
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN:
DATE:
DATE:DESCRIPTION:
P R E L I M I N A R Y ,
N O T F O R
C O N S T R U C T I O N
MARK:
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE inc
1645 NW HOYT ST
PORTLAND OREGON 97209
503 444 2200
11/13/2015 3:24:49 PM
C:\Users\Mpayne\Documents\14148_Oaks-Residential_mpayne.rvt
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5
3
:
2
4
:
4
9
P
M
THE OAKS
21267 STEVENS CREEK
BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
KT URBAN
14148
Author
16 NOVEMBER 2015
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
A6.301
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C -
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
APT-RETAIL BUILDING C - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
GROUND LEVEL
FF 294.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
0'10'25'50'75'100'
GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS
SEE SHEET G.007 FOR MATERIALS & COLORS1.
KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS
1 METAL PANEL FINISH
2 HORIZONTAL TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD
SIDING - SEE G.007 FOR COLORS
3 GRAY STUCCO FINISH
4 THIN BRICK VENEER - BLACK
5 THIN BRICK VENEER - GRAY
6 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM - GRAY
7 SECTIONAL STOREFRONT DOOR SYSTEM @
RETAIL - GRAY
8 WOOD STOREFRONT SYSTEM
9 STOREFRONT SYSTEM WITH CONCEALED
MULLIONS
10ALUMINUM GARAGE DOOR - GRAY
11STEEL ENTRY CANOPY
12ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM
13STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND CABLE
WIRE GUARDRAIL
14STEEL FRAME BALCONY W/ STEEL AND GLASS
GUARDRAIL
15ACCENT COLOR @ METAL PANELS
16ELEVATOR OVERRUN @ ROOF
212
9
14
11
GROUND LEVEL
FF 294.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 293.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
GROUND LEVEL
FF 294.5' = 0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
15' - 0"
LEVEL 3
25' - 0"
LEVEL 4
35' - 0"
LEVEL 5
45' - 0"
ROOF
55' - 0"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
6
"
7
11 9
2121413
12142
7
1312 2
7
A6.301
1
A6.301
2
A6.301
3
A6.301
4
8
8 9
811
11
13
1
1
3
3
3
16
16
1616 14
1
CURB @
293.5'
CURB @
292.4'
CURB @
295.9'
CURB @
290.0'
281
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Stevens Creek Development
Prepared for:
KT Urban, LLC
Prepared by:
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
255 Ygnacio Valley Road, #200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.934.8712
99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 831.324.4896
www.adeusa.com
July 8, 2015
282
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
Fiscal Impact Analysis ................................................................................................. 1
Revenue-Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................... 5
Fiscal Impact Results ...........................................................................................................11
Technical Appendices ...........................................................................................................11
Appendix A: Fiscal Impact Summary .......................................................................... 12
Appendix B: General Assumptions .............................................................................. 16
Appendix C: Revenue-Estimating ProcedurE ................................................................ 20
Appendix D: Expenditure-Estimating Procedure ............................................................ 29
Appendix E: Supporting Revenue Estimates ................................................................. 32
283
Applied Development Economics | Page 1
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
INTRODUCTION
This fiscal impact analysis (“Analysis”) examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s
annual General Fund budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates whether projected revenues from the
Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection and parks
and recreation, etc.) to the Project’s residents and employees. The Analysis is based on the
assumption that these services will be provided by the City. The results estimate the annual fiscal
impact assuming build out of the Project.
ADE has prepared this Analysis on behalf of the Property Owner without a dialogue with City staff
regarding the City’s budget. As described herein, certain expenditure calculations could be refined if
the City is engaged in the discussion.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is located in the South Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is located in the
northwest area of Santa Clara County, south of the City of Sunnyvale and west of the City of San Jose.
The Project site is located south of the existing Interstate 280 near the intersection of I-85 and
Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Project proposes 208 residential units of high-density/mixed-use multi-family apartment rental
product types with ground floor retail of 40,000 SF. The Project’s nonresidential development includes
approximately 198,000 SF of office, 40,000 SF of retail, 104,000 SF of hotel, and 17,000 SF of hotel
community center space. The Project also proposes approximately 1,215 two-level below grade
parking spaces, and 65 surface parking spaces. The Analysis does not include revenue or costs
generated from parking of the new development. Appendix B-3 summarizes the Project’s land use at
build out.
OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
The preliminary Analysis yielded the following results:
1. At build out, annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The
Analysis estimates the Project will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately
$1,104,000 for the City’s General Fund at build out.
2. Transient Occupancy Taxes comprise the largest General Fund revenue sources,
followed by Property Tax and Sales Tax. The Project’s transient occupancy taxes, sales
tax, and property tax consist of a total of approximately 77.65 percent of potential General
Fund revenues at Project build out.
3. Public Works drives the greatest estimated costs at 31.25 percent, with non-
departmental transfer’s expenditure at 26.74 percent, Recreation and Community
Services at 11.15 percent, and Police Services comprising of 10.43 percent of the
new General Fund expenditures at build out. This finding is consistent with the City’s
current operating budget, under which the Public Works accounts for 29 percent and non-
284
Page 2 | Applied Development Economics
departmental and transfer categories at 32 percent, representing the majority of existing
General Fund expenditures in the Final Adopted Operating Budget for FY 2014/2015.
4. Inclusion of a hotel in the Project development increases the transient occupancy
tax revenues. Hotel and Motel Taxes, or transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues comprise
of approximately 51.2 percent of total annual revenue and is the largest revenue source
behind sales tax at 14.64 percent and property tax at 11.82 percent. The TOT revenue
contributes to a large portion of the Project revenue at build out.
5. The City’s current budget accounts for recent one-time Apple Campus 2
development revenue and capital improvement projects. Recent expenditure projects
may result in higher annual expenditure estimates compared to the previous years and
proposed budget in FY 2015-2016. Current annual expenditures are higher than presently
estimated using the per persons served budget due to one-time CIP expenditures. Project
costs at build out are adjusted to reflect exclusion of the one-time offsetting expenditures.
6. New office development at build out generates $200,837 of total net fiscal
revenue. The office uses account for approximately 18 percent of total annual fiscal impact
at build out, as the second largest revenue source after hotel development, which accounts
for the majority of the tax revenue on the new development. Total retail net impact is
estimated at 9 percent of total Project revenue at build out.
STEVENS CREEK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
285
Applied Development Economics | Page 3
ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
The data, assumptions, and detailed calculations underlying the Analysis are provided in the tables
and graphs contained in the appendices following this text.
Appendix A contains the fiscal impact summary for each land use at build out, the City of
Cupertino’s final adopted budget for fiscal year 2014-2015, and the adjusted budget that
excludes one time capital improvement expenditures and departmental director’s salaries.
Appendix B contains the land use plan and detailed valuation assumptions, including
population and employment factors land use assumptions.
Appendix C contains detailed revenue estimates and revenue-estimating assumptions.
Appendix D contains detailed expenditure estimates and expenditure-estimating procedures.
Appendix E contains property tax allocation assumptions and estimated project assessed
valuation assumptions.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section details the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of
the Project on the City. It describes assumptions concerning municipal service delivery, land
development, and General Fund budgeting. In addition, it details the methodology used to forecast the
Project’s General Fund revenues and expenditures at build out.
The Analysis examines the Project’s ability to generate adequate revenues to cover the City’s costs of
providing public services to the Project. The services analyzed in this Analysis include General Fund
services (e.g., police, recreation and community services, and general government). The Analysis
excludes any services that may be funded privately and services funded by user rates or other
enterprise funds. In addition, this Analysis also does not include an evaluation of capital facilities,
capital improvement costs, or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
The Analysis is based on the City of Cupertino’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2015 adopted operating budget,
tax regulations, statutes, and other supplemental information from the City. Each revenue item is
estimated based on current State legislation and current City practices. Future changes by either State
legislation or County and City practices can affect the revenues and expenditures estimated in this
Analysis. The City’s operating budget cost categories are shown in Appendix A-3. ADE adjusted the
cost categories and allocated the cost by department, based on expenditure stated in each
department costs, as shown in Appendix A-4. For the expenditure items, all onetime costs and
salaries are adjusted, and all costs and revenues are shown in constant 2015 dollars. General fiscal
and demographic assumptions are detailed in Appendix B-1.
286
Page 4 | Applied Development Economics
The Analysis also uses information from the Property Owner, as well as historical data and projected
demographic data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), U.S. Census, U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and the City of Cupertino.
This Analysis also uses other critical assumptions that affect the Project’s value at build out including:
residential home values, average rent and unit square feet, densities, product types, persons-per-
household, and vacancy rates in the City’s current real estate market, as shown in Appendix E-1. The
results of this Analysis will vary if the development plans or other assumptions change from those
included with this Analysis.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE- AND EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING
ASSUMPTIONS
This Analysis considers only discretionary General Fund revenues that will be generated by the
Project. Offsetting revenues, which are General Fund revenues dedicated to offset the costs of specific
General Fund department functions, are excluded from this Analysis. Departmental costs that are
funded by offsetting revenues that are not affected by development are also excluded from this
Analysis. Appendix C-1 and C-3 shows the revenue-estimating procedures on a per person served
and case study bases and includes the offsetting revenues from the Analysis as shown in Appendix
A-4. Appendix D-1 and D-2 shows the expenditure-estimating procedures on a per person served
and case study basis, and also includes the offsetting revenues.
DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS
The results of this Analysis are based on the following assumptions. Below is a brief summary of the
land use and other development-related assumptions:
Land Use — This Analysis uses the 2015 Stevens Creek Site Mixed-Use Development Land
Use Master Plan, and updated land use summary by the Property Owner from email
correspondence dated April 28th, April 30th, and May 6th, detailed in Appendix B-2. The
Analysis examines the fiscal impacts of the Project at build out, and the summary tables are
detailed in Appendix A-1 and A-2.
Residential Population Estimates — Population projections are calculated using average
persons-per-household factors and vacancy rates based on the Co-Star Portfolio Strategy’s
2014 Q4 market data. The Analysis uses a factor of 2.9 persons-per-household for high-
density multi-family units, at vacancy rates of 3.6 percent, as shown in Appendix B-3.
Employee Estimates — Employee estimates are calculated using average square feet-per-
employee and vacancy rates based on existing real estate market data. The Analysis uses 300
SF per employee for General Office, 550 SF per employee for Ground floor Retail and Hotel,
and 1,100 SF per employee for the Hotel community space. A vacancy rate of 3.6 percent is
assumed for commercial and 3.5 percent for retail spaces based on Co-Star Portfolio
Strategy’s 2014 Q4 market data, as shown in Appendix E-1.
287
Applied Development Economics | Page 5
Residential and Nonresidential Assessed Value — The estimated assessed valuation per
square feet of residential and nonresidential development is based on information provided by
the Property Owner and comparable market data. Estimated build out assessed values for the
total Project are calculated in Appendix E-1.
Property Turnover Rates — The Analysis assumes a for-sale residential unit would turn over
once every 7 years and nonresidential properties would turn over once every 15 years. The
calculation is not evaluated in the analysis.
Persons-Served Methodology — In estimating service demands of the Project and the City,
ADE uses a factor of 0.5 resident-equivalents per employee to approximate the service
demands of an employee in the Project’s nonresidential land uses compared to a Project
resident. The total Persons Served is calculated as the sum of the total population plus half of
the total employees in the City.
Per Capita Methodology — The estimates for revenues and expenditures assume that only
residents have a fiscal impact on City’s revenue, including general fund categories such as
non-departmental and transfer. For this analysis, ADE uses per persons served and not per
capita to estimate the service cost for the general population.
Income and Retail Expenditure of Households — The average household income of each
residential land use category in the Project, including both apartment rental scenario and for-
sale scenario, were estimated to forecast household retail expenditures. The Analysis only
accounts for the rental scenario per request from the Property Owner. Estimated household
incomes reflect typical income levels that would be expected for households to purchase or
rent these homes under typical mortgage underwriting and affordability guidelines, as
described in Appendix E-2.
REVENUE-ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY
ADE used either a case-study approach or a per person served approach to estimate Project-related
General Fund revenues. The case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from
new development. The case-study approach for estimating sales and use tax revenues, for instance,
forecasts market demand and taxable spending from the Project’s new residents, as well as taxable
sales generated by the Project’s on-site retail. Case studies used in this Analysis are discussed in
greater detail later in this section.
The average-revenue approach uses the City’s FY 2014-2015 budgeted revenue amounts on a
citywide per capita or per persons served basis to forecast revenues derived from estimated residents
of the Project.
Revenue sources that are not expected to increase as a result of development are excluded from this
Analysis. These sources of revenue are not affected by development because they are either one-time
revenue sources not guaranteed to be available in the future, or there is no direct relation between
288
Page 6 | Applied Development Economics
increased employment growth and increased revenue. Some of these sources include department
director salaries, as shown in the adjusted budget in Appendix A-4.
A listing of all City General Fund revenue sources and the corresponding estimating procedure used to
forecast future Project revenues is shown in Appendix C-1 and summarized in the table below.
PROPERTY TAX
Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is presented in
Table D-1 based on the residential property access value from the Property Owner. To be consistent
with the City’s budget data, the estimated assessed values for Project land use are presented in
constant 2015-dollar values—real growth in assessed value is not estimated.
The Project site is located in the following Tax Rate Areas (TRAs):
APN 326-27-041 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $3,088,471
APN 326-27-040 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $3,636,656
APN 326-27-039 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $17,459,21
The share of property taxes available for the City General Fund from the County is approximately 5.6
percent of the 1 percent Property Tax allocation, while the County receives 34.5 percent and 8.6
percent that is allocated to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). Detailed calculation
is shown in Appendix C-2. ADE calculated a percentage factor of property tax estimated to be 8.8
percent, which include Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (PTIL VLF) and Property Transfer
Tax. The percentage is calculated by dividing the current property tax revenue from the adopted
operating budget by the Citywide assessed value, which yields a percentage higher than the 5.6
percent the County allocates to the City and includes both PTLF VLF and Property Transfer Tax.
SALES TAX
Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated within the City. The sales tax components
examined in this Analysis include the Bradley-Burns 1-percent Local sales tax rate and a revenue-
neutral factor to estimate the State-mandated exchange of 25 percent of sales tax revenue for
property tax, the Property Tax In-Lieu of Sales Tax (aka, Triple Flip). Estimated sales tax and property
tax in-lieu of sales tax revenues to the City are summarized in Appendix C-4.
The Analysis uses two methodologies to estimate taxable sales generated by the Project:
MARKET SUPPORT METHOD (RETAIL DEMAND)
Retail Sales based on Project Households’ Retail Expenditures
The Analysis in Appendix C-4A estimates retail expenditures of future residents in the Project by
type of retail category and the portion of expenditures that would be captured in the City (e.g.,
generate sales in the City’s retail establishments). The amounts and types of expenditures made by
residents generally depend on their household income. Data for this Analysis is based on estimated
289
Applied Development Economics | Page 7
Project resident incomes, household spending patterns, and retail demand and supply market
conditions in the City.
Specifically, the Analysis evaluates retail expenditures of future residents by the following:
Estimating the total income of new households based on the projected home sales prices
provided by the Property Owner. ADE assumes household income estimates assume owner-
occupied tenure with home purchase financed by a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.1
Evaluating Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
which reports the proportion of income spent on various household goods and services by
income group.
Translating BLS data on household expenditures into retail stores.
According to the Property Owner, all of the residential units will be rental apartments at Project build
out. The Analysis estimates the impact for the apartment rental scenario, and assumes the City’s
estimated average asking rent for residential rental apartments is $3.11 per unit per SF, at an
average of 944 SF per unit. Based on the average annual rental price, ADE estimated that future
household incomes would average $117,434 for high density multi-family apartment units. Household
retail expenditures supported by this income level are analyzed in Appendix E-2. In summary,
Project households are projected to spend a total of approximately $2.8 Million annually from the new
residential development on retail purchases in and beyond the Project within the City of Cupertino, as
shown in Appendix C-4A. This Analysis assumes that the City would capture 65 percent of the
Project’s retail demand resulting in $13,501 in annual total retail sales from households within the
Project.
Retail Sales Based on Project Employees’ Retail Expenditures
Research indicates that spending by workers in the vicinity of their place of work is significant. Given
the amount of Project employment expected at build out from office and hotel development, this
Analysis estimated the additional demand for retail that would be created by Project employees. First,
the analysis estimates the proportions of workers expected to be the Project’s residents versus non-
residents. Spending attributable to employees who are Project residents is discounted. ADE assumes
that such workers would still make a significant amount of their household spending in the Project
regardless of their place of work. Spending by workers from the City who do not reside in the Project
is also estimated, since such spending is assumed to occur in the City as a direct result of the workers’
employment at the Project. The Analysis conservatively assumes an average daily expenditure of $10
per workday per worker for 240 workdays annually, for a total of $447,672 annually in taxable retail
sales in the City, as shown in Appendix C4-A. The new retail development will add approximately 1
percent of total existing City inventory. Due to the small percentage, ADE estimates all taxable sales
are captured in the City at 100 percent.
1 Income estimate assumes that annual payment for the mortgage (30-yr, 5% fixed interest, 20% down
payment), property taxes, and insurance equal 30% of income. Property taxes and insurance assumed at 2% of
home value.
290
Page 8 | Applied Development Economics
RETAIL SPACE METHOD (RETAIL SUPPLY)
In addition to retail sales in the City that will be generated by expenditures of Project households and
employees, the Project proposes 40,000 SF of ground floor retail which will directly generate
additional retail sales in the City. To estimate potential future onsite retail sales, ADE applied sales-
per-employee assumptions to estimated retail employment. As shown in Appendix C-4B, the
Project’s retail is expected to generate approximately $12 Million in taxable sales annually. The City is
expected to capture 100 percent of retail sales from new households, and 65 percent of retail
spending from employees of the Project, based on retail leakage study in proximate site.
TOTAL PROJECT IMPACT ON TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN THE CITY
Total taxable retail sales generated by the Project are summed up in Appendix C-4. The analysis
assumes 100 percent of household retail is off site due to small development square footage. This
excludes insignificant adjustments to correct potential double-counting of retail purchases by Project
residents and employees at retail businesses located at the Project. The findings show total estimated
taxable sales of $41.9 Million annually and resulting sales tax revenues generated for the City.
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
This Analysis uses a case-study methodology to estimate transient-occupancy tax (TOT) revenue
generated by the Project. TOT revenue is estimated based on the number of hotel rooms, at an annual
occupancy rate of 65 percent, an average daily room rate of $200, and the City’s TOT rate of 12
percent. Appendix C-5 shows the estimated TOT revenue generated for the Project.
UTILITY TAX
The Utility Tax revenue uses a per person served methodology to estimate revenue generated by the
Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of residents, in addition to half of the
employee population in the proposed project development. ADE estimated the per capita weighted
average of 76.74 percent is generated in the residential uses, and the remaining in non-residential
uses. Appendix C-1 and C-3 shows the estimated Utility Tax revenue generated for the Project.
FRANCHISE FEES
ADE assumes the Franchise Fees tax revenue is generated from both residential and non-residential
development on the Project. The Franchise Fees revenue uses a per person served methodology to
estimate revenue generated by the Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of
employees in the proposed project development. Appendix C-1 and C-3 shows the estimated
Franchise Fees revenue generated for the Project from total employee at build out.
OTHER TAXES
Using a per person served calculation, Other Tax revenue generated from the Project build out
evaluates total revenue generated at the Project build out. The average per person served revenue is
$51.29 for other taxes for residential population and $15.54 for nonresidential population. This yields
a total of $30,935 total revenue from residential development and $6,932 from non-residential
development. Appendix C-1 and C-3 shows the estimated Other Tax revenue calculation.
291
Applied Development Economics | Page 9
LICENSES AND PERMITS
The total tax revenue generated from Licenses and Permits are allocated in both residential and non-
residential development using a per persons served methodology to estimate the per persons served
average revenue is $15.72, which yields a total of $9,482 for residential development revenue, and
$328.09 from office, $359.39 from retail, and $950.62 revenue generated from hotel development, as
shown in Appendix C-1 and C-3.
USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
The tax revenue generated from this category are allocated in both residential and non-residential
development using a per person served weighted average percentage allocation of 76.74 percent in
residential revenue. An estimate of $7.87 per persons served average for residential development
results in a total of $4,747 generated at build out, detailed in Appendix C-1. The remaining allocation
generates approximately $2.38 per persons served for nonresidential development, resulting in a total
of $1,064 total revenue generated for office, retail, and hotel development as shown in Appendix C-
3.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Intergovernmental tax revenue is allocated using a per person served methodology to estimate total
revenue generated at an average of $25.78 for residential and $7.81 for nonresidential, as shown in
Appendix C-1 and C-3. The revenue is estimated based on the number of residents in addition to
half of the employee population in the proposed project development.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
The Charges-for-services Tax Revenue is allocated for both residential and nonresidential development
at build out, using a per person served methodology as shown in Appendix C-1 and Appendix C-3.
Using the estimated per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent allocated to residential
development, the remaining percentage is allocated to nonresidential development, which results in
Project build out revenue with an estimated total of $93,448 and $20,940, respectively.
FINES AND FORFEITURES
It is estimated that Fines and Forfeitures tax revenue uses a per person served methodology to
estimate revenue generated by the Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of
residents in addition to half of the employee population in the proposed project development. ADE
estimated the per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent is generated in the residential uses and
the remaining in the non-residential uses. Appendix C-1 and C-3 shows the estimated Utility Tax
revenue generated for the Project.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous revenues estimates taxes generated from other revenue, excluding the above
categories. Using a per person served average, ADE calculated the total revenue generated at the
Project build out based on a per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent allocated to residential
development and the remaining in non-residential uses. Appendix C-1 shows the estimated total for
residential development, and non-residential development is shown in Appendix C-3.
292
Page 10 | Applied Development Economics
TRANSFER-IN
The Project build out accounts for Transfer-In revenue from other governmental funds and comprises
of majority of the revenue at build out. The revenue uses a per person served methodology for both
residential and non-residential development to calculate the estimated total generated from future
residents and employees. The per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent is used to allocate the
majority of the revenue generated from residential development, with the other 23.26 percent of total
revenue in non-residential development. The total Transfer-in revenue is approximately $229,434,
which accounts for an estimate of 10.85 percent of total general fund at build out. A detailed
calculation of this analysis is shown on Appendix C-1 and Appendix C-3.
EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY
Expenditure estimates are based on the adjusted City’s FY 2014–15 adopted operating budget and
supplemental information from the City’s public available information. All City General Fund
expenditure items and expenditure-estimating procedures are listed on Appendix D-1 and Appendix
D-2. All departmental manager salaries and one-time capital expenditures from Transfer-out are
excluded from the analysis to offset the fiscal year’s significant amount of capital improvement
projects, as a result of development revenue generated from the Apple Campus 2 Development
Agreement. The Project fiscal impact analysis relies on per persons served methodology to estimate all
General Fund expenditure impacts of new development for the City. The per persons served method
assumes the marginal cost of the City’s services to new Project residents and employees would equal
the City’s existing average-cost structure.
Expenditures affected by both residents and employees are projected using a per person served
average expenditure multiplier, while expenditures affected by residents only are projected using a
per-capital average expenditure multiplier and a weighted per capita of 76.74 percent allocation of
total costs.
Appendix D-1 and Appendix D-2 shows the weighted per capita adjustment factors used in this
Analysis. These adjustment factors are based on the weighted per capita percentage factor calculated
in Appendix B-1 and ADE’s experience on other similar fiscal analyses and account for the size and
land use composition of the Project compared to that of the existing City.
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
The net General Fund costs for each department reflects that department’s allocated share of indirect
costs, such as those costs for information technology, vehicle replacement, insurance, and other costs.
By accounting for the indirect costs within the specific department functions, the impact of new growth
on that department’s costs would include the indirect cost allocations as well. ADE has also adjusted
the general fund revenue and costs to eliminate onetime expenses from staff that are likely fixed
costs, such as director salaries for each department, as shown in Appendix B-3.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
ADE uses a percentage factor of total net General Fund costs to calculate the percentage cost
allocation for each land use. Appendix D-1 shows General Government cost is 7.48 percent of total
General Fund Expenditure. The general fund expenditure allocation for each residential and
293
Applied Development Economics | Page 11
nonresidential development uses this percentage to determine the total project build out revenue, as
shown in Appendix A-2.
FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS
Appendix A-1 and Appendix A-2 identifies General Fund fiscal impact results at build out.
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
The fiscal impact summary and the City’s general fund overview are shown in Appendix A-1 through
A-4. The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices B-1 through E-2:
Appendix A indicates the summary fiscal impact, the City’s general fund, and adjusted
General Fund allocation.
Appendix B shows the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
Appendix C identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the
City’s General Fund.
Appendix D details the estimated expenditures for the City to provide General Fund services
to the Project.
Appendix E shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for
calculating property tax and retail sales revenues from residential development at build out.
294
Page 12 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX A: FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY
Appendix A-1 Fiscal Impact Summary Table
Appendix A-2 Estimated Summary Fiscal Impact at Build out
Appendix A-3 City of Cupertino Adopted Budget FY 2014-2015
Appendix A-4 City of Cupertino Adopted Budget FY 2014-2015 – Adjusted Estimate by Department
APPENDIX A-1
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE AT BUILD OUT (2015$)
Total Project Revenues at Build Out $2,119,088
Total Project Expenditures at Build Out $1,014,567
Net Impact $1,104,521
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget;
KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
295
296
Applied Development Economics | Page 13
APPENDIX A-2
ESTIMATED SUMMARY FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT (2015$)
ITEM REFERENCE
% OF
TOTAL
ANNUAL
FISCAL IMPACT
AT BUILD OUT
MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RETAIL HOSPITALITY
GENERAL FUND
Annual Revenue Appendix C-1 and C-4
Sales Tax Appendix C-5, C-5A, C-
5B, E-1, E-2 14.86% $314,893 $21,061 $202,336 $90,411 $1,086
Property Tax Appendix B-2 and B-3 11.79% $249,832 $70,928 $104,544 $21,120 $53,240
Transient Occupancy Appendix C-6 51.05% $1,081,860 $0 $0 $0 $1,081,860
Utility Tax Appendix C-1 1.06% $22,488 $18,372 $2,936 $324 $857
Franchise Fees Appendix C-1 1.20% $25,440 $17,169 $5,899 $651 $1,721
Other Taxes Appendix C-1 1.79% $37,867 $30,935 $4,944 $545 $1,443
Licenses & Permits Appendix C-1 0.66% $14,050 $9,482 $3,258 $359 $951
Use of Money and Property Appendix C-1 0.27% $5,811 $4,747 $759 $84 $221
Intergovernmental Appendix C-1 0.90% $19,035 $15,550 $2,485 $274 $725
Charges for Services Appendix C-1 5.40% $114,387 $93,448 $14,935 $1,647 $4,357
Fines & Forfeitures Appendix C-1 0.19% $3,990 $3,259 $521 $57 $152
Miscellaneous Appendix C-1 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer-In Appendix C-1 10.83% $229,434 $187,434 $29,955 $3,304 $8,740
Total General Fund Revenue 100.00% $2,119,088 $472,385 $372,572 $118,777 $1,155,353
Annual Expenditure Appendix D-1 and D-2
General Government Appendix D-1 and D-2 7.55% $76,572 $58,399 $12,961 $1,430 $3,782
Police Appendix D-1 and D-3 10.43% $105,787 $77,232 $20,366 $2,246 $5,942
Public Affairs Appendix D-1 and D-4 4.21% $42,758 $31,217 $8,232 $908 $2,402
Recreation and Community Services Appendix D-1 and D-5 11.16% $113,265 $113,265 $0 $0 $0
Planning and Community Development Appendix D-1 and D-6 8.66% $87,872 $64,153 $16,917 $1,866 $4,936
Public Works Appendix D-1 and D-7 31.25% $317,007 $231,439 $61,029 $6,732 $17,807
Non-Departmental and Transfers Appendix D-1 and D-8 26.74% $271,307 $198,075 $52,231 $5,761 $15,240
Total General Fund Expenditure 100.00% $1,014,567 $773,780 $171,736 $18,944 $50,107
ANNUAL GF SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $1,104,521 ($301,395) $200,837 $99,833 $1,105,246
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban; ADE, Inc.
297
Page 14 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX A-3
CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2014-15 (2015$)
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ITEMS % OF TOTAL
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTED BUDGET
FY 2014/15
GENERAL FUND [1]
Annual Revenue
Sales Tax 17.92% $18,288,000
Property Tax 14.76% $15,067,000
Transient Occupancy 4.42% $4,510,000
Utility Tax 3.04% $3,100,000
Franchise Fees 2.84% $2,897,000
Other Taxes 5.12% $5,220,000
Licenses & Permits 1.57% $1,600,000
Use of Money and Property 0.78% $801,000
Intergovernmental 2.57% $2,623,943
Charges for Services 15.45% $15,768,164
Fines & Forfeitures 0.54% $550,000
Miscellaneous 0.00% $0
Transfer-In 30.99% $31,627,286
Total General Fund Revenue 100.00% $102,052,393
Annual Expenditure
Employee Compensation 14.20% $16,963,296
Employee Benefits 6.83% $8,163,673
Materials 4.32% $5,156,146
Contract Services 18.45% $22,047,745
Contingencies 1.48% $1,768,552
Cost Allocation 4.62% $5,519,694
Special Projects 2.53% $3,027,388
Capital Outlays 16.56% $19,788,794
Debt Service/Other Uses 3.71% $4,427,838
Transfer Out 27.30% $32,613,286
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures 100.00% $119,476,412
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) ($17,424,019)
Annual GF Surplus (Deficit) per Residential Unit ($223.06)
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] The City's FY 2014-2015 Final Adopted Budget reflects the City's receipt of large on-time dollar from the Apple
Campus 2 Development Agreement. Several one-time special and capital projects reflect a higher annual expenditure
relative to costs and departmental director salaries are not included as part of the Analysis, as shown in Appendix A-4.
298
Applied Development Economics | Page 15
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2014-15 (2015$) - ADJUSTED ESTIMATE BY DEPARTMENT
REVENUE
AND
EXPENDITURE
ITEMS
CITY OF CUPERTINO ADJUSTMENT [2] ADJUSTED BUDGET
% OF
TOTAL
ADJUSTE
D BUDGET ADOPTED BUDGET
FY 2014/15
LESS OFFSETTING
ONE-TIME CIP
AND STAFF SALARY
EXPENSES
NET ANNUAL
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE AND
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND BY DEPARTMENT
Annual Revenue By Department
Sales Tax $18,288,000 $0 $18,288,000 17.9%
Property Tax $15,067,000 $0 $15,067,000 14.8%
Transient Occupancy $4,510,000 $0 $4,510,000 4.4%
Utility Tax $3,100,000 $0 $3,100,000 3.0%
Franchise Fees $2,897,000 $0 $2,897,000 2.8%
Other Taxes $5,220,000 $0 $5,220,000 5.1%
Licenses & Permits $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 1.6%
Use of Money and Property $801,000 $0 $801,000 0.8%
Intergovernmental $2,623,943 $0 $2,623,943 2.6%
Charges for Services $15,768,164 $0 $15,768,164 15.5%
Fines & Forfeitures $550,000 $0 $550,000 0.5%
Miscellaneous $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Transfer-In $31,627,286 $0 $31,627,286 31.0%
Total General Fund Revenue $102,052,393 $0 $102,052,393 100.0%
Annual Expenditure By Depart. [1]
General Government $7,900,711 $616,690 $7,284,021 7.5%
Police $10,175,620 $174,350 $10,001,270 10.4%
Public Affairs $4,203,524 $161,114 $4,042,410 4.2%
Recreation and Community Services $11,506,514 $250,290 $11,256,224 11.7%
Planning and Community Develop. $8,438,292 $130,720 $8,307,572 8.6%
Public Works $30,343,173 $372,735 $29,970,438 31.1%
Non-Departmental and Transfers $33,764,940 $8,115,000 $25,649,940 26.6%
Total Annual General Fund
Expenditures $106,332,774 $9,820,899 $96,511,875 100.0%
Annual General Fund
Surplus/(Deficit) ($4,280,381) ($9,820,899) $5,540,518
Annual GF Surplus (Deficit) per
Residential Unit ($54.80) ($125.73) $70.93
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] ADE allocated expenses based on individual departments in the City's budget.
[2] Offsetting staff expenses are adjusted from department budget to account for departmental directors' one -time fixed salary expenses.
Several one-time special and capital projects reflect a higher annual expenditure relative to previous years. For the purpose of the Analysis,
these one-time capital improvement are adjusted from Transfers-out and the costs are not included as part of the Analysis, as shown in the
operating budget adjustment.
Note: 2014 CIP Projects, excluded from Analysis, include updated accessibility transition plan, Calabazas Creek outfall repair, Civic Center
Plan Updates, Library story room expansion, Linda Vista Pond Repair, McClellan Ranch Preserve Upgrade, McClellan Road Sidewal k
Improvements Phase 1, Monta Vista Storm Drain System, Public Building Solar Installation, Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade, Quinl an
Community Center Fiber Installation, Storm Drain Master Plan Update, Sports Center Court, Sports Center Tennis Court retainin g wall
replacement, Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master plan
299
Page 16 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX B: GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Appendix B-1 Total Residential and Employee Population
Appendix B-2 Land Use Summary at Build Out
Appendix B-3 Total Residential and Employee Population at Build Out
300
Applied Development Economics | Page 17
APPENDIX B-1
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION
ITEM ASSUMPTION
General Assumptions
Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2014-2015
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Cupertino
Population [2] 59,946
Employees (2011) [3] 36,332
City of Cupertino Persons Served [4] 78,112
City of Cupertino Visitors -
Percent per Capita Weight for Residential 76.74%
Inflationary/Appreciation Factors
Property Tax 2.0%
Other Revenue 3.0%
Costs 3.0%
Estimated Citywide Assessed Value [5] $17,100,000,000
Source: California Department of Finance; California Employment Development Department; ADE, Inc.
[1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2014-2015 approved final budget. Revenues and expenditures
are in 2015 dollars. This analysis does not reflect changes in values resulting from inflation or appreciation.
[2] Based on population estimates from the California Department of Finance (DOF) data for January 1,
2013.
[3] Based on 2011 US Census obtained from Onthemap.ces.census.gov and adjusted by additional 10% to
account for self-employed workers.
[4] Defined as total population plus half of total employees.
[5] Total citywide FY2013-2014 assessed value based on Financial Report from County of Santa Clara.
301
Page 18 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX B-2
LAND USE SUMMARY AT BUILD OUT
BUILD OUT LAND USE
ACREAGE
[3]
AVERAGE
DENSITY
DWELLING
UNITS
BUILDING
SQUARE
FEET
Multi-Family
High-Density Residential Mixed-Use
(HDR) - - 208 201,500
Subtotal Multi Family 0.0 0.0 208 201,500
Total Residential Land Uses 0.0 0.0 208 201,500
Nonresidential Land Uses Office - - - 198,000
Subtotal Office 0.0 - - 198,000
Retail/Commercial Retail (Ground floor) - - - 40,000
Subtotal Retail/Commercial - - - 40,000
Hotel Hotel [1] 0.0 - 190 104,000
Community/Conference Room
(Ground floor) - - - 17,000
Subtotal Hotel 0.0 - 190 121,000
Total Nonresidential Land Uses 0.0 - 190 359,000
Other Land Uses [2] Open Spaces (OS) 0.0 - - -
Total Other Land Uses 0.0 - - -
Total Residential, Nonresidential, and
Other Uses 0.0 - 398 560,500
Major Streets, Parking and
Infrastructure [3]
Below Grade Parking - - 1,215 Surface Parking - - 65 Total Parking 0.0 - 1,280 573,564
Total Stevens Creek Site Land Uses [4] 0.0 - - 1,134,064
Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, Inc., April 2015.
[1] Hotel room numbers provided by KT Urban at 190 total rooms as of March 2015.
[2] Excluded from analysis. Landscape expenditure not included in City of Cupertino 2014-2015 Operating Budget.
[3] Excluded from the analysis.
[4] Land use summary provided by KT Urban and C2K Architecture, Inc. as of March 2015.
302
Applied Development Economics | Page 19
APPENDIX B-3
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION AT BUILD OUT
LAND USE
PER UNIT/SQ. FT.
BUILD OUT
RESIDENTS EMPLOYEES
PERSONS
SERVED
Residential Population [1]
High-Density Residential (HDR)
High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) 2.9 603 - 603
Subtotal High-Density Residential 603 603
Total Residential Population 603 603
Employee Population [2] Sq. Ft./Employee
Office 300 - 636 318
Subtotal Office 636 318
Retail/Commercial
Retail (Ground floor) 500 - 70 35
Subtotal Retail/Commercial 70 35
Travel Commercial and Event Facilities
Hotel [3] 500 - 170 85
Community/Conference Center [4] 2,000 - 15 8
Subtotal Hotel 186 93
Total Employee Population 892 446
Total Residential and Employee Population 603 892 1,049
Total Persons Served [5] 1,049
Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, Inc., April 2015.
[1] Residential population based on occupied dwelling unit assumptions as shown in Appendix E-1.
[2] Employee population based on occupied sq. ft. assumptions as shown in Appendix E-1.
[3] Hotel employment estimated based on occupied sq. ft. assumptions as shown in Appendix E-1.
[] Hotel common area employment estimated based on occupied sq. ft. assumptions as shown in Appendix E -1.
[5] Total Persons Served is defined as 100% of household population plus 50% of employees.
303
Page 20 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX C: REVENUE-ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE
Appendix C-1 Residential Unit Revenue Assumptions
Appendix C-2 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenue
Appendix C-3 Non-Residential Unit Revenue Assumptions
Appendix C-4 Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue Summary
Appendix C-4A Annual Sales Tax from Market Support
Appendix C-4B Estimated Taxable Sales, Adjusted Retail Space Method
Appendix C-5 Estimated Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
304
Applied Development Economics | Page 21
APPENDIX C-1
RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
REVENUE ITEMS
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS [5]
PER PERSONS SERVED/CASE STUDY
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/DESCRIP
TION
MULTI-FAMILY MIXED-USE
RESIDENTIAL
PER PERSONS
SERVED UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT REVENUE
REVENUE (2015$)
Sales Tax [1] - n/a $21,060.78 Case Study
Property Tax [2][3] 100.00% n/a $70,928.00 Case Study
Transient Occupancy Tax [4] 0.00% n/a $0 n/a
Utility Tax 76.74% $30.46 $18,372 Per Persons Served
Franchise Fees 76.74% $28.46 $17,169 Per Persons Served
Other Taxes 76.74% $51.29 $30,935 Per Persons Served
Licenses & Permits 76.74% $15.72 $9,482 Per Persons Served
Use of Money and Property 76.74% $7.87 $4,747 Per Persons Served
Intergovernmental 76.74% $25.78 $15,550 Per Persons Served
Charges for Services 76.74% $154.92 $93,448 Per Persons Served
Fines & Forfeitures 76.74% $5.40 $3,259 Per Persons Served
Miscellaneous 76.74% $0.00 $0 Per Persons Served
Transfer-In 76.74% $310.73 $187,434 Per Persons Served
Total Annual Revenue $472,385
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] Refer to Appendix C-5A for calculation. Sales tax is generated from on-site residents.
[2] Refer to Appendix C-2 for calculation. Cities receive 5.6% of Santa Clara County property tax allocation based on the City's adopted
budget for FY 2014/2015. Property Tax in-lieu of VLF not included as part of property tax calculation.
[3] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Land Use_Build out Table. Note that assessed values are expressed in 2015$ assume no real
appreciation. Formula for Transfer Tax = Assessed Value/1000*Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value*Turnover rate. All residential
development is assumed to be owner-occupied. Residential Property turnover rate at 7 years or 14%.
[4] Excluded from residential revenue calculation.
[5] Adjustment factors based on the citywide weighted average per capita as shown in Appendix B -1.
305
Page 22 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX C-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (2015$)
ITEM ASSUMPTION
ANNUAL FISCAL
IMPACT AT
BUILD OUT
Property Tax (1% of Assessed Value)
Residential Build Out Assessed Value (2015$) [1] Appendix E-1 $80,600,000
Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.00% $806,000
Estimated Property Tax Allocation [2]
City of Cupertino (Post-ERAF) [3] 8.80% $70,928
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] For assumptions and calculation of adjusted assessed value, refer to Appendix E-1.
[2] For assumptions and calculation of the estimated property tax allocation, refer to Appendix E-1 and E-2.
[3] City of Cupertino Citywide property tax allocation is 5.6 percent of overall County allocation. The 8.8 percent
accounts for PTIVLF and Property Transfer Tax by dividing general government budget over citywide assessed value.
City assessed value based on County of Santa Clara annual comprehensive financial budget.
306
Applied Development Economics | Page 23
APPENDIX C-3
NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
REVENUE ITEMS
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS [5]
OFFICE RETAIL HOTEL
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/
DESCRIPTION
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT/CASE
STUDY
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT REVENUE
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT/CASE
STUDY
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT REVENUE
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT/CASE
STUDY
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT REVENUE
REVENUE (2015$)
Sales Tax [1] n/a - $202,336.00 - $90,410.56 - $1,085.97 Case Study
Property Taxes [2][3] n/a - $104,544.00 - $21,120.00 - $53,240.00 Case Study
Transient Occupancy [4] 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $48,589.62 $1,081,860.00 Case Study
Utility Tax 23.26% $9.23 $2,936.13 $9.23 $323.88 $9.23 $856.68 Per Person Served
Franchise Fees 23.26% $18.54 $5,899.18 $18.54 $650.72 $18.54 $1,721.21 Per Person Served
Other Taxes 23.26% $15.54 $4,944.07 $15.54 $545.37 $15.54 $1,442.54 Per Person Served
Licenses & Permits 23.26% $10.24 $3,258.09 $10.24 $359.39 $10.24 $950.62 Per Person Served
Use of Money and
Property 23.26% $2.38 $758.66 $2.38 $83.69 $2.38 $221.35 Per Person Served
Intergovernmental 23.26% $7.81 $2,485.24 $7.81 $274.14 $7.81 $725.12 Per Person Served
Charges for Services 23.26% $46.95 $14,934.66 $46.95 $1,647.40 $46.95 $4,357.50 Per Person Served
Fines & Forfeitures 23.26% $1.64 $520.93 $1.64 $57.46 $1.64 $151.99 Per Person Served
Miscellaneous 23.26% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Per Person Served
Transfer-In 23.26% $94.16 $29,955.46 $94.16 $3,304.30 $94.16 $8,740.13 Per Person Served
Total Annual Revenue $372,572 $118,777 $1,155,353
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] Refer to Appendix C-5A and C-5B for calculation.
[2] Cities receive 5.6% of Santa Clara County property tax allocation based on the City's adopted budget for FY 2014/2015. Pr operty Tax in-lieu of VLF and Transfer Tax not included as part of
property tax calculation. ADE uses 8.8% as a property tax factor that includes both.
[3] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Land Use Build out Table. Note that assessed values are expressed in 2015$ assume no real appreciation.
Formula for Transfer Tax = Assessed Value/1000*Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value*Turnover rate. Nonresidential Property turnover rate at 15 years or 6.7%.
[4] Hotel room numbers is assumed at 190 rooms from the Property Owner. See Appendix C-6 for calculation.
[5] Adjustment factors based on the citywide weighted average per capita as shown in Appendix B -1. Non-residential adjustment factors accounts for remaining of total revenue less residential
revenue.
307
Page 24 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX C-4
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE SUMMARY (2015$)
ITEM SOURCE/ASSUMPTION
SALES AND USE TAXES
ANNUAL REVENUE AT
BUILD OUT
Residential and Nonresidential
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from New Residential Households [1]
Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support - Residential Appendix C-5A $2,808,104
Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support - Employee Appendix C-5A $447,672
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from New Non -Residential
Development [2]
Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Retail Uses Appendix C-5B $12,000,000
Annual Business-to-Business Taxable Sales Appendix C-5B $26,730,000
Annual Taxable Sales from Total Net New Development $41,985,776
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $419,585
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($104,964)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $314,893
Cumulative Annual Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Revenue 0.2500% $104,964
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Loopnet; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE , Inc.
[1] Total residential taxable sales account for residents and employees living on -site.
[2] Total new nonresidential taxable sales account for ground floor retail sales per SF and office sales revenue.
308
Applied Development Economics | Page 25
APPENDIX C-4A
ANNUAL SALES TAX FROM MARKET SUPPORT (2015$)
ITEM SOURCE
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM
MARKET SUPPORT
ASSUMPTION
ANNUAL
REVENUE AT
BUILT OUT
Residential
Annual Taxable Sales from New Households
Residential Development (Units)
High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) 208
Total Residential Development 208
Residential Retail Expenditure
High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) -
Rental Apartments Scenario $13,501
Total Retail Expenditure $2,808,104
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from New
Household
Annual City Taxable Sales Captured within the
City of Cupertino 100.0%
Total Taxable Sales from New Household $2,808,104
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from New
Household
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $28,081
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($7,020)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $21,061
Annual Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax
Revenue 0.2500% $7,020
Nonresidential
Annual Taxable Sales from New Employees
New Employees
Non Residential Development (Employee)
Office 318 $248,134
Retail (Ground floor) 70 $54,742
Hotel 170 $132,742
Community/Conference Center 15 $12,055
Total Employees 574
Average Daily Taxable Sales per New
Employee $10
Work Days per Year 240
Taxable Sales from New Employees 50.0%
Estimated Retail Capture Rate within City of
Cupertino 65.0%
Total Taxable Sales from New Employees $447,672
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from New
Employee
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.00% $4,477
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.25% ($1,119)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.75% $3,358
309
Page 26 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX C-4A
ANNUAL SALES TAX FROM MARKET SUPPORT (2015$)
ITEM SOURCE
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM
MARKET SUPPORT
ASSUMPTION
ANNUAL
REVENUE AT
BUILT OUT
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue - Office $1,861
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue - Retail $411
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue -
Hotel/Conference Center $1,086
Annual Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Revenue 0.25% $1,119
Total Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support
Residential and Nonresidential $3,255,776
Estimated Annual Total Taxable Sales (On-Site) [1] 0.00% $0
Estimated Annual Total Taxable Sales (Off-Site) 100.00% $3,255,776
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Loopnet; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE.
[1] Existing City inventory include 3,696,327 SF of retail. The additional 40,000 SF of retail accounts for approximately 1 percent
increase of total inventory. ADE assumes Project captures 0 percent of total On -site retail spending and 100 percent of retail
spending are from the City due to the low percentage.
310
Applied Development Economics | Page 27
APPENDIX C-4B
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES, ADJUSTED RETAIL SPACE METHOD (2015$)
ITEM
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM RETAIL
SOURCE/ASSUM
PTIONS
ANNUAL REVENUE
AT BUILD OUT
Annual Taxable Sales per Square Foot [1]
High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) $130 Office (Business-to-Business) $135 Retail/Commercial (Ground floor) $300 Hotel $130 Cumulative On-Site Retail Square Feet High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) 0 Office 0 Retail/Commercial (Ground floor) 40,000 Hotel 0
Total Cumulative On-Site Retail Square Feet 40,000
Annual Taxable Sales from On-Site Retail Development High-Density Residential Mixed-Use (HDR) $0
Office $0
Retail/Commercial (Ground floor) $12,000,000
Hotel $0
Subtotal Annual Taxable Sales from On-Site Retail
Development $12,000,000
Less Total Annual Taxable Sales From Market Support (within
the Project) $0
Subtotal Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Retail
Development in the City $12,000,000
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from New Retail Development
Excluding Market Support
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $120,000
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($30,000)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $90,000
Business-To-Business Taxable Sales Cumulative Office square Feet 198,000 Taxable Sales from On-Site Office Development $26,730,000
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from Business-To-Business
Office Development
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $267,300
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($66,825)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $200,475
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Co-Star Portfolio Strategy; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, Inc.
[1] Sales per Square Foot from ULI Dollars and Cents 2008, and ADE's experience for office development in Cities of San Jose,
Union City, Hayward, Pasadena, and San Luis Obispo.
APPENDIX C-5
311
Page 28 | Applied Development Economics
ESTIMATED ANNUAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES (2015$)
ITEM ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT
Hotel Rooms [1] 190
Annual Rooms Available 69,350
Occupancy Rate [2] 45,078
Average Daily Room Rate [3]
Estimated Annual Hotel Revenues $9,015,500
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) $1,081,860
Source: KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
[1] Hotel room numbers provided by KT Urban, as shown in Appendix B-2.
[2] Assumptions based on recent hotel trends at 65%; ADE.
[3] Average daily room rate provided by ADE, assume at $200.
[4] Annual TOT rate at 12% provided by City of Cupertino.
312
Applied Development Economics | Page 29
APPENDIX D: EXPENDITURE-
ESTIMATING PROCEDURE
Appendix D-1 Residential Unit Expenditure Assumption
Appendix D-2 Non-Residential Unit Expenditure Assumption
313
Page 30 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX D-1
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS
EXPENDITURE ITEMS [1]
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PER PERSONS SERVED/CASE STUDY
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/DESCRIPTION
MULTI-FAMILY MIXED-USE
RESIDENTIAL
PER CAPITA UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD OUT
EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE (2015$)
General Government 8.16% n/a $58,399.36 Case Study
Police 76.74% $166.84 $77,232 Per Person Served
Public Affairs 76.74% $67.43 $31,217 Per Person Served
Recreation and Community Services 100.00% $187.77 $113,265 Per Person Served
Planning and Community Development 76.74% $138.58 $64,153 Per Person Served
Public Works 76.74% $499.96 $231,439 Per Person Served
Non-Departmental and Transfers 76.74% $427.88 $198,075 Per Person Served
Total Annual Expenditure $773,780
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Per Capita Expenditure.
314
Applied Development Economics | Page 31
APPENDIX D-2
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS
EXPENDITURE ITEMS [1]
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PER EMPLOYEE/CASE STUDY
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/DESCRIPT
ION
OFFICE RETAIL HOTEL
PER EMPLOYEE
UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT
EXPENDITURES
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT
EXPENDITURES
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILD
OUT
EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE (2015$)
General Government 8.16% n/a $12,961.37 n/a $1,429.73 n/a $3,781.75 Case Study
Police 23.26% $275.28 $20,365.67 $275.28 $2,246.48 $275.28 $5,942.11 Per Persons Served
Public Affairs 23.26% $111.26 $8,231.59 $111.26 $908.00 $111.26 $2,401.74 Per Persons Served
Recreation and
Community Services 0.00% $309.82 $0.00 $309.82 $0.00 $309.82 $0.00 Per Persons Served
Planning and
Community
Development
23.26% $228.66 $16,916.78 $228.66 $1,866.04 $228.66 $4,935.82 Per Persons Served
Public Works 23.26% $824.91 $61,029.05 $824.91 $6,731.94 $824.91 $17,806.50 Per Persons Served
Non-Departmental and
Transfers 23.26% $705.99 $52,231.18 $705.99 $5,761.47 $705.99 $15,239.54 Per Persons Served
Total Annual
Expenditure $171,736 $18,944 $50,107
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] Reflects the City of Pasadena Per Employee Expenditure
315
Page 32 | Applied Development Economics
APPENDIX E: SUPPORTING REVENUE
ESTIMATES
Appendix E-1 Land Use Assumptions
Appendix E-2 Average Income and Annual Taxable Retail Expenditures for Residential Units
APPENDIX E-1
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
LAND USE
ESTIMATED
ASSESSED
VALUE PER
SF [1]
ESTIMATED
ASSESSED
VALUE PER
UNIT
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
ASSESSED
VALUE [1]
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
TURNOVER
RATE
PERSONS
PER UNIT/
SQ. FT.
[2]
VACANCY
RATE [3]
OCCUPIED
UNITS [4]
RESIDENTIAL FOR-SALE
SCENARIO PER SQ. FT.
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
TOTAL AV
PERSONS/
DWELLING
UNIT
High-Density Residential
(HDR) [5]
High-Density Residential
Mixed Use (HDR) $400 $387,500 $80,600,000 14.0% 2.9 4.7% 208
Total $80,600,000
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
SCENARIO
MONTHLY
PER SQ. FT.
AVG SQ. FT.
PER UNIT
PER DWELLING
UNIT/YEAR
High-Density Residential -
Rental Apartments Scenario $3.11 944 $35,230
NONRESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT. TOTAL AV
SQ.
FT./EMPL
OYEE
OCCUPIED
SQ. FT.
Office [6]
Office $600 $118,800,000 6.7% 300 3.6% 190,872
Retail/Commercial (RC) [6]
Retail (Groundfloor) $600 $24,000,000 6.7% 550 3.5% 38,600
Hotel [6]
Hotel $500 $52,000,000 6.7% 550 10.0% 93,600
Community/Conference
Center $500 $8,500,000 6.7% 1,100 - 17,000
Total $203,300,000 340,072
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Co-Star Portfolio Strategy; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE.
Note: Residential For-Sale Scenario is excluded in the Analysis
[1] Residential values and nonresidential values provided by KT Urban based on 2015$.
[2] Based on average persons per household (population in occupied housing units in structure), ADE.
[3] Vacancy rate for residential units derived from Co-Star Portfolio Strategy. Vacancy rates assumptions for office and retail based on long-term trends in
commercial vacancy rates in the local market.
[4] Occupied dwelling units and sq. ft. based on vacancy rate assumptions.
[5] Property turnover rate at 7 years based on ADE research.
[6] Property turnover rate at 15 years based on ADE research.
APPENDIX E-2
316
Applied Development Economics | Page 33
AVERAGE INCOME AND ANNUAL TAXABLE RETAIL EXPENDITURES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS (2015$)
ITEM
ESTIMATED
ASSESSED
VALUE PER
UNIT
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND RETAIL
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL
ANNUAL
MORTGAGE,
INS., &
TAX
PAYMENTS
[2]
ESTIMATED
HOUSEHOL
D INCOME
[3]
TAXABLE
EXPENDITURE
AS % OF
INCOME [4]
AVERAGE RETAIL
EXPENDITURE
PER HOUSEHOLD
Residential For-Sale Scenario
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AVERAGE HOME
VALUE PER UNIT PER UNIT PER UNIT PER UNIT
High-Density Residential - For Sale
Scenario [1] $387,500 $30,000 $75,000
Average Residential Retail Expenditure
Average Residential Retail Expenditure 26.4% $20,000
Estimated Annual Residential Retail
Expenditure $4,160,000
Estimated Retail Capture within the City [5] 65.0%
Total Annual Residential Retail
Expenditure $2,704,000
Total Taxable Retail Spending 67.0% $1,811,680
Total Taxable Retail Spending Per
Condo Unit $8,710
Residential Rental Scenario
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AVERAGE
ANNUAL RENT
% OF
ANNUAL
INCOME
High-Density Residential - Rental
Apartments Scenario $35,230 30.0% $117,434
Average Residential Retail Expenditure
Average Residential Retail Expenditure 26.4% $31,000
Estimated Annual Residential Retail
Expenditure $6,448,000
Estimated Retail Capture within the City [5] 65.0%
Total Annual Residential Retail
Expenditure $4,191,200
Total Taxable Retail Spending 67.0% $2,808,104
Total Taxable Retail Spending Per
Rental Unit $13,501
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2012; ADE.
Note: Residential For-Sale Scenario is excluded in the Analysis
[1] Excluded in the Analysis
[2] Variable-Density Residential: based on a 6%, 30-year fixed rate mortgage with a 20% down payment and 2% for annual taxes and insurance.
Values have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Assume annual rent is 30% of annual income
[3] Assumes mortgage lending guidelines allow no more than 40% of income dedicated to mortgage pa yments, taxes and insurance.
[4] Average annual taxable retail expenditures per household used to estimate a nnual sales tax revenues.
Taxable expenditures as a percentage of income based on data gathered from the 2012 Consumer Expenditure Survey publishe d by BLS and ADE's
proprietary retail analysis.
[5] Captured rate based on proximate retail leakage study in the City of Cupertino.
317
Office Market Analysis,
Mixed-Use Assessment
Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Site
Prepared for:
KT Urban, LLC
Prepared by:
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
255 Ygnacio Valley Road, #200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.934.8712
99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 831.324.4896
www.adeusa.com
July 8, 2015
318
319
Applied Development Economics
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
Office Market analysis and Mixed-use assessment .......................................................... 3
Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................... 3
Key Findings ........................................................................................................................ 4
Office Market Analysis ..........................................................................................................10
Mixed-Use Market Assessment ..............................................................................................12
Attachment 1 ........................................................................................................... 14
320
Applied Development Economics | Page 1
SSUUMMMMAARRYY
KT Urban (“Project Owner”) retained ADE to provide an office market analysis, a mixed-use market
assessment, and a fiscal impact analysis related to the viability of the proposed mixed-use
development (“Project”) on Stevens Creek Boulevard (“Project Site”) in the City of Cupertino (“City”),
California. Specifically, the analyses includes the following: evaluation of the office market capacity in
the City and surrounding sub-market area of Silicon Valley; assessment of currently planned and
developing mixed-use projects in the regional market; and estimation of the net fiscal impact of
development of the Project at build out, with the mixture of programmatic uses including high-density
residential rental, ground floor retail, office, and hotel. Below is a summary of the key findings and
conclusions from these analyses. Following this summary are the detailed technical analyses (Section
1– Office and Mixed-Use Market Analysis- Mixed-Use Assessment; Section 2 – Fiscal Impact
Analysis; Attachment 1 – Tables, Figures Relating to Section 1).
Office Market Analysis
Population and employment growth in the City of Cupertino suggests a continued strong
demand for office and mixed-use development.
Projected office demand in the regional market increases substantially through 2019.
A strong tech industry and related employment sector will drive office demand in the future.
Class A office space in the Project Site is likely to be highly demanded from the regional
market, including local business expansion or relocation of office uses in the City Future office
space in the Project Site is conveniently located near major access and arterial corridors.
The majority of existing office inventory in the Cupertino submarket consists of aging Class B
and C spaces, and does not reflect current work patterns and needs.
The City is a major regional employment center, and the office market is strong relative to
other submarkets in the region.
New office development results in a greater local job multiplier effect, and provides greater
local resources from these jobs compared to other land uses.
High-tech office workers bring consistently higher wage earners to the submarket in Cupertino
compared to employees in other types of land uses, and provide additional resources to
support schools, retail, and other types of amenities.
Mixed-Use Assessment
Mixed-use projects combining ground-floor retail, hotel, residential, and office uses are an
attractive land use mix in the Project Site and region.
321
Page 2 | Applied Development Economics
The addition of a new mixed-use project at the West end of Stevens Creek Blvd. can be a
defining land use that anchors the community, and the western end of the Heart of the City
Specific Plan area.
As with many mixed use projects, the Project Site development program can mitigate land use
impacts, such as traffic generation, through the proportional balance of the mix of uses.
Conclusions
The findings of these analyses identify significant overall market support for office development, a
strong likelihood of success for a mixed-use development at this location, and a positive net fiscal
impact for the City of Cupertino. This conclusion, in turn, supports the Project Site’s development
feasibility, and if constructed, could provide significant subsequent community benefits supporting the
City’s overall economic development and land use policy objectives, as recently expressed in the
General Plan Update and the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
322
Applied Development Economics | Page 3
OOFFFFIICCEE MMAARRKKEETT AANNAALLYYSSIISS AANNDD MMIIXXEEDD--
UUSSEE AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The purpose of the market analysis (“Analysis”) is to evaluate the market potential that influences the
office and mixed-use market segments for future development at Stevens Creek Boulevard (“Project
Site”) in the City of Cupertino (“City”), California. ADE prepared this Analysis for KT Urban to assess
the real estate trends and market potential for office and mixed-use development in the market
surrounding the Project Site to ascertain the market support for future development.
The underlying market matrices used to evaluate the office market capacity in the City include overall
market trends, rental and sale prices, vacancy and absorption rates, and other significant
characteristics. The primary market area is defined as the City of Cupertino, and the secondary
market is defined as the regional context within Santa Clara County, including the Cities of Milpitas,
Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. Selected submarkets in the Bay Area, including San Jose
submarkets and the City of Fremont, are assessed for the mixed-use development market potential.
ADE compared multiple data sources including: The Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”),
Department of Finance (“DOF”), REIS, Co-Star, Collier’s, Real Capital Analytics, information from the
City of Cupertino, as well as interviews with local commercial real estate brokers. These data sources
were used to inform the Analysis and subsequent evaluation of the office and mixed-use development
for the Project Site.
While future demand for office space is a direct function of employment growth and market demand,
the recent surge of demand for office space in the City and the market area is expected to continue in
the next five years. While in the past few years vacancy rates remained between 1.3 to 1.9 percent
since 2012, the City is primarily a Class B and C office market due to supply constraints resulting from
limited land availability and an aging office inventory. However, with the presence of multiple
technology company headquarters, a strong tech employment base, a decrease in the unemployment
rate, low vacancy rates causing rent increases, and an increase in recent construction activities, the
office market exhibits a strong demand in the region and will likely continue in the foreseeable future.
The findings of the Analysis further identified the healthy market support for Class A offices, which
also have a strong demand in the City over the next five years.
Class A office space in the City accounts for approximately 32.4 percent of total inventory in 2015.
Future office demand is projected to be strong in the City, with an estimate of 940,000 SF feet of
inventory through 2015, and approximately 5,130,000 SF of inventory within the next 5 years through
year 2019. While the new single-tenant Apple Campus, which is a built-to-suit office, will consume
nearly half of the projected Class A office demand in the City, the market supply will be absorbed
quickly and there will be significant demand remaining for additional office development.
323
Page 4 | Applied Development Economics
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Cupertino Milpitas Mountain View Palo Alto
POPULATION
ABAG Population Projection
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
In addition, the Analysis also illustrates a strong market support for additional mixed-use development
in the City of Cupertino and in the regional market areas. Specifically, the Project Site’s configuration
and mix of proposed programmatic uses, which include residential, office, retail, and hotel, is expected
to thrive at this specific site location in support of the continued growth of local population,
employment, and overall future demand.
KEY FINDINGS
The market study, which examines the market potential of office and mixed-use development near the
Project Site and surrounding regional area, results in the following conclusions:
SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Population and employment growth suggest a continued strong demand for office
and mixed-use development. The City is projected to add more than 12,898 new residents
by 2040, and is expected to capture approximately 3 percent of future population in the
region. The City is estimated to increase the number of jobs by 7,020, translating into an
average compounded annual growth rate of 0.9 percent. The increases in population and jobs
indicate strong demand for residential and office space in order to meet the office and housing
needs of the expanding population. 1 (Figure 1)
FIGURE 1
PROJECTED REGIONAL SUBMARKET POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Source: Association of Bay Area Government, ADE, Inc. 2015
1 Association of Bay Area Government Population and Employment Projections 2013, ADE, Inc.
324
Applied Development Economics | Page 5
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
ABAG Employment Projection
Palo Alto Mountain View Milpitas Cupertino
FIGURE 2
PROJECTED REGIONAL SUBMARKET POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Source: Association of Bay Area Government, ADE, Inc. 2015
A strong tech industry and employment sector will drive office demand in the future.
The City’s strong tech employment base will likely drive office demand in the next five years.
With the assumption of full occupancy of the new Apple Campus of 2.8 Million SF, coupled with
existing inventory supply constraints and the market’s projected strong future demand, it is
likely the market will quickly absorb additional future office development. (Figure 2)
Projected office demand in the regional market increases substantially through
2019. The projected demand in the region indicates strong prospects for developing new
office space in the region. After 2015, the City is expected to add 4,621,000 SF of office space
by 2019, nearly doubling the total office demand in the next five years. While positive office
absorptions average only 72,000 SF per year since 2003, the City is projected to have an
average annual absorption of 302,000 SF through 2019. The market projection indicates
strong demand for additional office space supported by an increase in employment growth in
the City and the region, in addition to low vacancy rates, steady increase in rents, increase in
construction activities, and an overall decrease in the unemployment rate. 2 (Figure 3)
2 Co-Star Portfolio Strategy 2014 Q3, Association of Bay Area Governments, ADE, Inc.
325
Page 6 | Applied Development Economics
FIGURE 3
PROJECTED CITY OF CUPERTINO OFFICE ABSORPTIONS
Source: City of Cupertino Office Market, Co-Star Portfolio Strategy 2014 Q3
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS
Class A office space in the Project Site is likely to be highly demanded by local
business expansion or relocation in the City. The City of Cupertino is a major regional
employment center for multiple tech companies, and has a current lack of general Class A and
built-to-suit inventory. Continued job growth, company expansion needs, and strong demand
for professional, business, and personal services, will drive demand for additional Class A
office space in the City.
Future office space in the Project Site is conveniently located near major access and
arterial corridors. The Project Site is situated near I-85 and Stevens Creek Blvd., an easy
access to major arterial corridors that will likely attract future office and retail tenants, which
will also serve the local population. In addition, the presence of the Santa Clara Valley Transit
connecting to the light rail and Bart stations is likely to be an attractive feature for future
office tenants.
The majority of existing office inventory in the Cupertino submarket consists of
aging Class B and C spaces and does not reflect current work patterns. With the
predominant workforce demographic of Millennial, traditional office configurations and design
are changing significantly, rendering even many new Class A office spaces outdated. This
inside-out, build-to-suit type office product challenges traditional office inventory with higher
ceilings, larger floor plate sizes, and more unobstructed space.3 The new Apple and NVIDIA
3 Peter Weingarten, “Workplace Transformation: How Human Capital is Impacting Investment in Real Estate”,
Posted February 27, 2015, http://www.nareim.or/viewpoints/workplace-transitions-how-human-capital-is-
impacting-investment-in-real-estate/
326
Applied Development Economics | Page 7
campuses are testament to this new hyper-connected and programmed floor plan and design.
The majority of Cupertino’s current office inventory is Class B and C, and does not reflect the
demand for the new design prototype. As a result, this limits the ability for existing aging
inventory to attract and retain technology companies who want to grow and be located close
to the Apple Campus, or located in the vicinity of other primary industry drivers. Additionally,
Cupertino has the lowest concentration of Class A office space in the submarket area.
Interviews with City staff indicate recent departures of companies, including the large electric
vehicle charging station company ChargePoint and other large corporations from the City, due
to lack of available office space that meet these specific programmatic needs.
The City is a major regional employment center and the office market is strong
relative to other submarkets in the region. With high lease rates per square feet, coupled
with low vacancy rate in 2014, the City is one of the strongest office submarkets in the region
in comparison to Milpitas, Mountain View, and Palo Alto.
MIXED-USE ASSESSMENT
Mixed-use projects combining ground-floor retail, hotel, residential, and office uses
are an attractive land use mix in the Project and region. This type of development is
attractive in the region and appropriate for the Project where a high concentration of
population, businesses, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic exist, particularly due to the
proximity of the De Anza College, Stevens Creek Blvd., and Highway 85. The concept plan for
The Oaks site development appears to be one of the most balanced and market responsive
mixed-use developments in comparison with other projects that are either under construction
or currently in the planning process in the City and the region.
The addition of a mixed-use project at the West end of Stevens Creek Blvd. can be a
defining land use for the community. Much in line with the policy objectives of the Stevens
Creek Corridor Plan and the proposed General Plan Update, the location of the Project Site can
provide a western urban edge to the community’s core. With the building heights and mix of
uses, this Project Site can complement the dominant land use in the area - the large college
across the boulevard - and help to define the western boundary of the city’s core, providing a
logical demarcation for density and height, before transitioning to lower scale commercial and
residential development across Highway 85.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
New office development results in a greater local job multiplier effect and greater
local resources compared to other land uses. Office uses in the Project Site will most
likely be occupied by the high-tech industry. Recent studies have shown that high-tech
companies have a significantly higher local job multiplier at 4.3 jobs for every high-tech
worker, higher than a traditional manufacturing use of 1.4 additional jobs, and well above
other land uses of commercial or residential.
327
Page 8 | Applied Development Economics
High-tech office workers bring consistently higher wage earners to the submarket in
the City of Cupertino, compared to employees in other types of land uses. Additional
employees with these higher wages will provide added resources for schools, retail,
and other types of amenities.4 The Project Site potentially mitigates land use
impacts through the proportional balance of the mix of uses. Many of the other mixed-
use sites in the City and in the submarket have a predominance of a single land use, such as
residential or retail, which outpace the demand from the other land uses on the Project Site to
support it, consequently creating a natural in- and-out migration to the site through the
surrounding community. Alternatively, the programming mix at this Project Site appears to be
a model for the City and region, balancing relatively equal-sized land uses in terms of
demand. The number of residential units are balanced with the amount of office space, and is
supported by the hotel, all benefiting from a moderate amount of ground floor retail. With a
balanced site mix, in-and-out migration is reduced, thus lessoning the negative impacts to the
surrounding community, such as traffic generation.
4 Bay Area Council Economic Institute, Technology Works: high-Tech Employment and Wages in the United States,
December 2012.
328
Applied Development Economics | Page 9
OFFICE PRODUCT DEFINITION
For this Analysis, office building types are typically defined as high rise (higher than 15 stories),
midrise (4 to 15 stories), low rise (1 to 3 stories), garden office (1 to 5 stories with extensive
landscaping), creative office space, R&D, and Flex spaces. In the City, the majority of the existing
office inventories were Class B office space until recent construction of Class A office space. ADE uses
the most recent industry reports and office product definition from Co-Star Portfolio Strategy to define
typical classes of office products, as follows:
TYPICAL OFFICE PRODUCT TYPES
1. Class A (4 to 5 Star)
Investment grade building that command the market’s highest rents and attract credit -
worthy tenants. Typically new, highly competitive building at excellent location.
2. Class B (3 Star)
Office buildings in good location and management that are well maintained.
3. Class C (1 to 2 Star)
Substantially older buildings compared to Class A and Class B located in less desirable
location.
4. Owner-occupied buildings
Office building leased or owned by a single tenant.
5. Build-to-suit development
Office building designed and constructed for a particular tenant.
6. Spec buildings
Single or multi-tenant building design without specific tenant commitments.
For references related to office market analysis within this memorandum, please see the tables and
figures in Attachment 1.
MIXED-USE PRODUCT DEFINITION
Mixed-use development is typically characterized by an active, pedestrian-friendly environment through
effective programming and design of a mix of uses that result in a thriving product, defined by a single
tower or complex planning development. ADE characterized these developments by the following:
Three or more significant revenue-product uses (such as retail/entertainment, office,
residential, hotel, and/or civic/cultural/recreation) within a project that is mutually supporting.
Significant physical and function integration of project components, including uninterrupted
pedestrian connections.
Development in conformance with a coherent plan (that frequently stipulates the type and
scale of uses, permitted densities, and related items.)
329
Page 10 | Applied Development Economics
ADE reviewed the City’s website and published articles from the Silicon Valley Business Journal and
identified current and upcoming pipeline mixed-use development projects in the City and the regional
markets, including San Jose submarkets and the City of Fremont for comparable development. The
mixed-use developments that are currently under construction or have recently been approved are
characterized by projects with three or more programmatic uses, including residential, office, retail and
commercial, hotel, or a combination of each in the product or plan. While there are no residential
projects that have industrial uses, all mixed-use projects in the City and region include a residential
component, with several projects combining residential and office uses only, and others with residential
and retail only. A majority of mixed-use developments have all residential, office, and retail uses within a
single physical structure or plan. In addition, a majority of the mixed-use development residential uses
are multi-family, which includes rental apartments, townhomes, and/or market-rate condominiums.
Several projects include residential and unspecified “commercial” spaces, which can be characterized by
either retail or office uses. For more detail on each project, please see Appendix 4 Mixed-Use
Project Summary.
OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS
Between the years of 2003-2015, the City’s average annual demand (Net Absorption) is 72,000 SF at
a growth rate of approximately 1.7 percent. Approximately 36,000 SF of office inventory are delivered
on an annual average basis, resulting in a slight undersupply of office space until 2013. (See Table 2
and Graph 2 of Attachment 1). The total office inventory stayed at approximately 4.5 to 4.6 Million
SF between 2003 to 2014, until recent development by Sand Hill Property added another 260,000 SF
of office space on Stevens Creek Blvd. Based on historical trends, the office supply and demand
remain fairly consistent between 2003 to the past year, with a small overall positive absorption on an
annual average basis.
A close examination of the impact of the new Apple Campus yields a significant increase of office
supply on the market in 2016, with an addition of another 200,000 SF of proposed office space, the
Cupertino office market may have a more aggressive projected demand due to the construction of the
new Apple Campus. Since the new 3 Million SF space is a built-to-suit office space for Apple, the
market is projected to absorb the supply immediately. Additionally, subsequent growth of office space
in the City is expected due to the strong tech presence in the region, the new development of the
Apple Campus, and subsequent secondary and tertiary businesses that may move to the City as a
result of the new development (e.g., the desire of Apple hardware and software suppliers to locate
near the campus). The impact of the new development results in a projected office space inventory of
9.5 Million SF in 2019, and 636,000 SF of office space demand in the same year. The additional supply
and demand yields an average of 302,000 SF of annual absorption between the years of 2003-2019.
The projected average annual office demand will increase by 200,000 SF with the presence of the new
Apple Campus, which reflects positively on the market demand in the City in the near future.
(See Table 2)
330
Applied Development Economics | Page 11
As such, due to land supply constraints, long-term office forecast demand in the City beyond 2019
may hinge on the long-term plans for the Apple Campus. However, with strong tech industry base and
projected growth of the industry in the City and nearby sub-markets, it is likely the office market will
be able to support incremental office development after the construction of the new Apple Campus is
completed. (See Figure below Table 2)
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The recent surge of demand for office space in the City is expected to continue in the next five years.
While historically, there was no office supply in the City for Class A (4 to 5 Star offices) between 2003
to 2014, average annual demand (net absorption) for Class A was 15,000 SF. Despite the lack of
construction activities prior to 2014, the City’s office market has been very active in the past two
years, thus, ADE evaluated the projected supply based on both historical trends before 2015, and the
market supply once the new Apple Campus is completed. Additionally, there was more Class B (3
Star) office space constructed in 2008 and 2009 compared to Class A and C office space, with an
estimate of 170,000 SF of new RBA (Rentable Building Area). Annual average absorption of this office
type was approximately 36,000 SF. There were very few activities for Class C (1 to 2 Star) office
space, with only 24,000 SF constructed in 2005. The City has experienced an average annual
absorption of Class C office 9,000 SF since 2003. (See Tables 3 to Table 5)
VACANCY AND RENT
The office vacancies, on average, have been on a steady decline since 2011, but is projected to
increase steadily after 2016 for all office product types. Overall Gross Asking Rent is projected to
increase for all office classes (A, B, and C) with the recent, significant new supply and positive
absorption trends, and the vacancy rate for Class A office has increased for the Region since the
recession, to 17.1 percent in 2014. Class A office has an average annual vacancy rate of 6.2 percent
since 2011, the lowest compared to other project types. Class B office is expected to continue with
steady growth with recent decrease in vacancy rate since the recession, coupled with increase in Gross
Asking Rent. Historically, this office class has been the strongest, compared to Class A and Class C
office space. Class C office space had a steady increase in Gross Asking Rent and stable vacancy rates,
at an approximate range of 2 to 3 percent in recent years. (See Tables 6 to Table 9)
SALES AND TRANSACTIONS TRENDS
The City has rebounded since the recession and less office inventory has been sold in the market in
recent years. The majority of transactions were Class B and C offices, and Class A office market had
relative few activities overall in comparison. The median sales price for office space in the City has
consistently been higher than the San Jose Metro Market sales price, except for 2009. This indicates a
relatively healthy office market compared to the rest of the metro submarkets. The majority of the
recent office space sold in recent years has been purchased by private investors, with the largest
transactions by several large private and publicly traded institutional investors, between 2010 and
2013. (See Tables 10 to 15)
331
Page 12 | Applied Development Economics
PIPELINE AND RECENT DELIVERIES
The recent delivery in the City is an estimate of 200,353 SF office space developed between 2004-
2008. While there were few office construction activities in the past decade, recent development
began in 2014, with two 130,000 SF offices on Stevens Creek Blvd., and the new 2.8 Million SF Apple
Campus on Wolfe Road. All three projects are expected to be completed in 2015 and 2016.
Additionally, there are currently two proposed office developments that are not yet entitled, with an
expected total of approximately 253,406 SF of additional new office space to be delivered on the
market in the foreseeable future. (See Table 16)
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The City’s office market recovery has been significant compared to the region, and is one of the
strongest submarkets in the region. It represents approximately 4.3 percent of total construction
delivery in the San Jose metro market. The City’s market demand is projected as the fifth strongest
submarket in the region, and is expected to grow in the next five years. Supported by continued
growth in the tech industry employment and a strong employment base, the additional supply of the
new Apple Campus positions the City to rank first in construction delivery. (See Table 17 and
Appendix 1)
MIXED-USE MARKET ASSESSMENT
Office uses have historically been the driving force behind many mixed-use projects. Careful
evaluation of the office market determines the market support for office components in the mixed-
used development, and the potential of the programmatic mix enhances the office component in the
City. The evaluation of mixed-use projects in adjacent submarkets shows similar scale development
that may be comparable to the proposed Project Site. The assessment in Attachment 1, Appendix 4
shows approximately 42 mixed-use developments that are currently planned and under construction
in the City and the region. ADE calculated the average mixture of programmatic uses for these
projects with the following result: 450 residential units; 244,000 SF of Class A, B, and C office space;
183 rooms in a hotel development; and 232,000 SF of retail and non-specified commercial space.
These averages reflect several larger mixed-use development projects, particularly projects with office
and retail uses. The evaluation excludes the Vallco Project in the City, as it is not yet entitled or under
construction.
Among the 42 mixed-use projects identified, six projects occupy a site that is similar in size to the
Project Site in the City. One of these projects, by the developer Sand Hill Property, is the Main Street
Cupertino project, and includes a mixed-use development under construction consisting of 120
lofts/studios residential units, 260,000 SF of office space, 183,000 SF of retail, and a 180 hotel rooms.
In the City’s adjacent submarkets within Santa Clara County, there are approximately ten mixed-use
developments in Sunnyvale, with only one at a similar scale to the proposed Project Site. According to
the City of Sunnyvale’s project development website, the proposed mixed -use project by Quattro
Realty Group includes 292 high-density residential units, 1 Million SF of office space, 275,000 SF of
retail space, and a movie-cinema.
332
Applied Development Economics | Page 13
In the City of Mountain View, the approved Merlone Greir project on 405 San Antonio Road is a mixed-
use project that includes 360,900 SF of office, 107,800 SF of retail, a movie theater, and 167 hotel
rooms, and does not include a residential component. It is located next to the Pillar Group on 420 San
Antonio Road, which include 373 apartments and 10,000 SF of retail space. While both projects are
smaller in scale compared to the Project Site, the combination of both mixed-use development result
in similar scale comparable to the proposed Stevens Creek Project Site.
The Irvine Company's new Mixed-Use Village project in the City of Santa Clara consists of 2,000
residential apartments units, 612,000 SF of office space, and 125,000 SF of retail space. The office
and retail space is currently under construction, and they have decided in recent plans to add the
additional 2,000 apartment units, thus positioning the project to be at larger scale mixed-use
development.
A general overview of the East Bay shows Lennar Homes’ proposal of a major project in the City of
Fremont. This project is expected to be located adjacent to the Fremont's Warm Spring BART Station,
and in close proximity to the Tesla Plant. It will consist of approximately 2,200 high-density residential
units and 1.4 Million SF of commercial space, which include both retail and office space. The
proportion of retail and office uses is unknown.
In conjunction with the office market analysis that determines the market support for the Project Site
and a comparison with similar scale mixed-use development, the Stevens Creek Project Site is likely
to be absorbed due to strong projected demand of office space and low vacancy level. The comparable
recent mixed-use development and office square feet within the programming mix is comparable in
size with projects of a similar scale. The proposed Project’s residential, retail, and hotel uses enhances
the attractiveness of the office uses, and comprises predominantly residential uses with 263,600 SF of
market-rate and senior housing, following by office uses of 200,000 SF.
The programming mix of the Project appears in similar scale to other mixed-use projects, and appears
to be one of the more balanced projects in the region as indicated by the average square feet of
residential, office, retail, and hotel space as noted above in a fairly compact site. As such, this
configuration is very compatible with principles of sustainable land use development as exemplified by
the efficient use of land, access to public transit, balance of jobs and housing to reduce commuting,
etc., that are often key objectives of mixed-use development projects.
333
Page 14 | Applied Development Economics
ATTACHMENT 1
334
The Oaks Commercial Retail
Development Fiscal Impact
Analysis
Prepared for:
KT Urban, LLC
Prepared by:
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
255 Ygnacio Valley Road, #200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.934.8712
99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 831.324.4896
www.adeusa.com
October 16, 2015
335
Applied Development Economics, Inc.
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
Revenue-Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................... 4
Expenditure-Estimating Methodology ...................................................................................... 7
Fiscal Impact Results ............................................................................................................ 8
Technical Appendices ............................................................................................................ 8
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 9
336
Applied Development Economics | Page 1
SSUUMMMMAARRYY
INTRODUCTION
KT Urban (“Property Owner”) retained Applied Development Economics, Inc. (ADE) to examine the
potential fiscal impact of The Oaks Development (“Project”), an existing commercial retail
development of approximately 63,995 sq. ft. located in the City of Cupertino (“City”) in Santa Clara
County (“County”).
This fiscal impact analysis (“Analysis”) examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s
annual General Fund budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates whether projected revenues from the
Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection, and
parks and recreation, etc.) to the Project’s residents and employees. The Analysis is based on the
assumption that these services will be provided by the City. The results estimate the current annual
fiscal impact of the Project.
ADE has prepared this Analysis on behalf of the Property Owner without a dialogue with City staff
regarding the City’s budget. As described herein, certain expenditure calculations could be refined
once the City is engaged in the discussion and certain budget-related questions can be resolved.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is located in the South Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is located in the
northwest area of Alameda County, south of City of Sunnyvale and west of City of San Jose. The
Project site is located south of the existing Interstate 280 near the intersection of I-85 and Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
The Project has approximately 46,442 square feet of ground floor commercial retail and 17,553 square
feet of commercial office. The Project’s commercial office and retail spaces is categorized in Table C-
2C. Office spaces include approximately 8,308 square feet of space leased by Dance Academy, 8,134
square feet of space occupied by ELS Educational Services, and 1,111 square feet of space occupied
by Leapstart. The remaining Project space serves as commercial retail space. The Analysis does not
include revenue or costs generated from parking. Table B-2 summarizes the Project’s existing land
use.
OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
The draft Analysis yielded the following results:
1. The annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The Analysis
estimates the Project will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $115,513 for
the City’s General Fund.
2. Sales Taxes comprise the largest General Fund revenue sources, followed by
Property Tax. The Project’s sales tax is approximately 63.73 percent of total General Fund
revenue, and property tax consist of a total of approximately 13.56 percent of potential
General Fund revenues.
337
Applied Development Economics | Page 2
3. Public Works drives the greatest estimated costs at 35.54 percent, with the Non-
Departmental Transfers expenditure at 30.41 percent, and Police Services
comprising 11.86 percent of the new General Fund expenditures at buildout. This
finding is consistent with the City’s current operating budget, under which the Public Works
accounts for 29 percent and Non-Departmental and Transfer categories at 32 percent
represent majority of existing General Fund expenditures in the Final Adopted Operating
Budget for FY 2014/2015.
4. Office and retail development generate approximately $56,438 and $221,483 of
total gross revenue, respectively. The office uses accounts for approximately 20.96
percent of total annual gross revenue at buildout. Retail uses accounts for the majority of the
tax revenue on the existing development, at an estimated of 79.04 percent of total current
Project revenue.
FIGURE 1
EXISTING FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY GRAPH
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
MEMORANDUM ORGANIZATION
The data, assumptions, and detailed calculations underlying the Analysis are provided in the following
four appendices attached to this memorandum:
Table A contains the fiscal impact summary for each land use, and the City of Cupertino’s
final adopted budget for fiscal year 2014-2015.
Table B contains the land use plan and detailed valuation assumptions, including population
and employment factors, and land use assumptions.
Table C contains detailed revenue estimates and revenue-estimating assumptions, and
detailed sales per sq. ft. data provided by KT Urban.
Table D contains detailed expenditure estimates and expenditure-estimating procedures.
Table E contains estimated project assessed valuation assumptions.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Total Project
Revenues
Total Project
Expenditures
Existing Net
Impact
An
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
The Oaks Mixed-Use Development Fiscal Impact
338
Applied Development Economics | Page 3
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section details the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of
the Project on the City. It describes assumptions concerning municipal service delivery, land
development, and General Fund budgeting. In addition, it details the methodology used to forecast the
Project’s General Fund revenues and expenditures.
The Analysis examines the existing Project’s ability to generate adequate revenues to cover the City’s
costs of providing public services to the Project. The services analyzed in this Analysis include General
Fund services (e.g., police, recreation and community services, and general government). The
Analysis excludes any services that may be funded privately, and services funded by user rates or
other enterprise funds. In addition, this Analysis also does not include an evaluation of capital
facilities, capital improvement costs, or funding of capital facilities.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
The Analysis is based on the City of Cupertino’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2015 adopted operating budget,
tax regulations, statutes, and other supplemental information from the City. Each revenue item is
estimated based on current State legislation and current City practices. Future changes by either State
legislation or County and City practices can affect the revenues and expenditures estimated in this
Analysis. The City’s operating budget cost categories are shown in Table A-3. ADE adjusted the cost
categories and allocated the cost by department, based on expenditure stated in each department
costs, as shown in Table A-4. For the expenditure items, all one time costs and salaries are adjusted,
and all costs and revenues are shown in constant 2015 dollars. General fiscal and demographic
assumptions are detailed in Table B-1.
The Analysis also uses information from the Property Owner, as well as historical data and projected
demographic data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), U.S. Census, U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and the City of Cupertino.
This Analysis also uses other critical assumptions that affect the Project’s value including: non-
residential product types, employee/sq. ft., and vacancy rates in the City’s current real estate market,
as shown in Table E-1. The results of this Analysis will vary if the development plans or other
assumptions change from those included with this Analysis.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE- AND EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING
ASSUMPTIONS
This Analysis considers only discretionary General Fund revenues that will be generated by the
Project. Offsetting revenues, which are General Fund revenues that are dedicated to offset the costs of
specific General Fund department functions, are excluded from this Analysis. Departmental costs that
are funded by offsetting revenues that are not affected by development are also excluded from this
Analysis. Table C-1 shows the revenue-estimating procedures on a per-persons served and case
study bases, and includes the offsetting revenues from the Analysis as shown in TableA-4. Table D-1
shows the expenditure-estimating procedures on a per persons served and case study basis, and also
includes the offsetting revenues.
339
Applied Development Economics | Page 4
DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS
The results of this Analysis are based on the following assumptions. Below is a brief summary of the
land use and other development-related assumptions:
Land Use—This Analysis uses the Land Use assumption provided by the Property Owner from
email correspondence dated August 27th, detailed in Table B-2 and C-2B. The Analysis examines
the current fiscal impacts of the Project, and the summary tables are detailed in Table A-1 and A-
2.
Employee Estimates—Employee estimates are calculated using average square feet-per-
employee and vacancy rates based on existing real estate market data. The Analysis uses 300 sq.
ft.-per-employee for General Office, and 550 sq. ft.-per-employee for Ground floor Retail space. A
vacancy rate of 10.2 percent is assumed for commercial office and retail spaces based on
information provided by the Property Owner, as shown in Table E-1.
Nonresidential Assessed Value—The estimated assessed valuation per square feet of
nonresidential development is based on information provided by the Property Owner and
comparable market data. Estimated current assessed values for the total Project are calculated in
Table E-1.
Property Turnover Rates—The Analysis assumes nonresidential units would turn over once every
15 years. The calculation for residential properties is not evaluated in the analysis.
Persons-Served Methodology—In estimating service demands of the Project and the City, ADE
uses a factor of 0.5 resident-equivalents per employee to approximate the service demands of an
employee in the Project’s nonresidential land uses as compared to a Project resident. The total
Persons Served is calculated as the sum of the total population plus half of the total employees in
the City.
Per Capita Methodology— The estimates for revenues and expenditures that assume only
residents have a fiscal impact on City’s revenue, including general fund categories such as non-
departmental and transfer. For this analysis, ADE uses per persons served and not per capita to
estimate the service cost for the general population.
Sales Tax Per Sq. ft.—The average sales tax per Sq. ft. of tenant at the Project was estimated to
forecast the Project’s net fiscal impact for commercial office and retail spaces, using the ULI Dollars
and Cents of Shopping Centers in 2008 and inflated to 2015 dollars, as described in Table C-2C.
REVENUE-ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY
ADE used either a case-study approach or a per persons served approach to estimate Project-related
General Fund revenues. The case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from
new development. The case-study approach for estimating sales and use tax revenues, for instance,
forecasts market demand and taxable sales generated by the Project’s on-site retail. Case studies
used in this Analysis are discussed in greater detail later in this section.
The average-revenue approach uses the City’s FY 2014-2015 budgeted revenue amounts on a
citywide per capita or per-persons-served basis to forecast revenues derived from estimated residents
of the Project.
340
Applied Development Economics | Page 5
Revenue sources that are not expected to increase as a result of development are excluded from this
Analysis. These sources of revenue are not affected by development because they are either one-time
revenue sources not guaranteed to be available in the future or there is no direct relation between
increased employment growth and increased revenue. Some of these sources include department
director salaries, as shown in the adjusted budget in Table A-4.
A listing of all City General Fund revenue sources and the corresponding estimating procedure used to
forecast future Project revenues is shown in Table C-1 and summarized in the table below.
PROPERTY TAX
Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is presented in
Table E-1 based on the residential property access value from the Property Owner. To be consistent
with the City’s budget data, the estimated assessed values for Project land uses are presented in
constant 2015-dollar values—real growth in assessed value is not estimated.
The share of property taxes available for the City General Fund from the County is approximately 5.6
percent of the 1 percent Property Tax allocation, while the County receives 34.5 percent and 8.6
percent is allocated to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). ADE calculated a
percentage factor of property tax is estimated to be 8.8 percent, which include Property Tax In Lieu of
Vehicle License Fee (PTIL VLF) and Property Transfer Tax. The percentage is calculated by dividing the
current property tax revenue from the adopted operating budget by the Citywide assessed value,
which yields a percentage higher than the 5.6 percent the County allocates to the City and includes
both PTLF VLF and Property Transfer Tax.
SALES TAX
Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated within the City. The sales tax components
examined in this Analysis include the Bradley-Burns 1-percent Local sales tax rate and a revenue-
neutral factor to estimate the State-mandated exchange of 25 percent of sales tax revenue for
property tax, the Property Tax In-Lieu of Sales Tax, also known as, Triple Flip. Estimated sales tax and
property tax in-lieu of sales tax revenues to the City are summarized in Table C-1, C2, C2A, C2B,
and C2C.
The Analysis uses the retail sales per sq. ft. methodologies to estimate taxable sales generated by the
Project:
Retail Space Method (Retail Supply)
The Project’s 46,442 square feet of ground floor retail spaces directly generate retail sales in the City.
To estimate existing onsite retail sales, ADE applied sales-per-employee assumptions to estimated
retail employment. As shown in Table C-1, the Project’s retail is expected to generate approximately
$23 million in taxable sales annually. The City is expected to capture 100 percent of retail sales from
new households, and 65 percent of retail spending from employees of the Project based on retail
leakage study in proximate site.
341
Applied Development Economics | Page 6
TOTAL PROJECT IMPACT ON TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN THE CITY
Total taxable retail sales generated by the Project are summed up in Table C-2. The analysis assumes
100 percent of household retail is off site due to the small development square feet, which exclude
insignificant adjustments to correct for potential double-counting of retail purchases by Project
residents and employees at retail businesses located at the Project. The findings shows total estimated
taxable sales of $59,036 annually and resulting sales tax revenues generated for the City.
UTILITY TAX
The Utility Tax revenue uses a per person served methodology to estimate revenue generated by the
Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of residents in addition to half of the
employee population in the proposed project development. ADE estimated the per capita weighted
average of 76.74 percent is generated in the residential uses, and the remaining in the non-residential
uses. Table C-1 shows the estimated Utility Tax revenue generated for the Project.
FRANCHISE FEES
ADE assumes the Franchise Fees tax revenue is generated from both residential and non-residential
development on the Project. The Franchise Fees revenue uses a per persons served methodology to
estimate revenue generated by the Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of
employees in the proposed project development. Table C-1 shows the estimated Franchise Fees
revenue generated for the Project from total employee.
OTHER TAXES
Using a per person served calculation, Other Tax revenue generated from the Project evaluates
current total revenue generated. The average per person served revenue is $66.66 for nonresidential
population. This yields a total of $30,935 total revenue from residential development , and $4,764
from non-residential development. Table C-1 shows the estimated Other Tax revenue calculation.
LICENSES AND PERMITS
The total tax revenue generated from Licenses and Permits are allocated in both residential and non-
residential development using a per persons served method ADE estimated the per persons served
average revenue is $43.11, which yields a total of $1,261 from office and $1,820 from retail revenue
generated from the Project, as shown in Table C-1.
USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
The tax revenue generated from this category are allocated in both residential and non-residential
development using a per person served weighted average percentage allocation of 76.74 percent in
residential revenue. An estimate of $10.23 per persons served average for non-residential
development results in a total of $731 generated at buildout, detailed in Table C-1.
342
Applied Development Economics | Page 7
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Intergovernmental tax revenue is allocated to using a per person served methodology to estimate
total revenue generated at an average of $33.51 for nonresidential, as shown in Table C-1. The
revenue is estimated based on the number of residents in addition to half of the employee population
in the proposed project development.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
The Charges For Services Tax Revenue is allocated for both residential and nonresidential
development at buildout, using a per person served methodology as shown in Table C-1. Using the
estimated per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent allocated to residential development, the
remaining percentage is allocated to nonresidential development, which results in Project built out
revenue with an estimated total of $5,890 and $8,500, respectively.
FINES AND FORFEITURES
It is estimated that Fines and Forfeitures tax revenue uses a per person served methodology to
estimate revenue generated by the Project. The revenue is estimated based on the number of
residents in addition to half of the employee population in the proposed project development. ADE
estimated the per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent is generated in the residential uses, and
the remaining in the non-residential uses. Table C-1 shows the estimated Utility Tax revenue
generated for the Project.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous revenues estimates taxes generated from other revenue excluding the above
categories. Using a per person served average, ADE calculated the total revenue generated at the
Project Buildout based on a per capita weighted average of 76.74 percent allocated to residential
development and the remaining in non-residential uses, as shown in Table C-1.
TRANSFER-IN
The Project Buildout accounts for Transfer-In revenue from other governmental development for the
future development and comprise of majority of the revenue. The revenue uses a per person served
methodology for both residential and non-residential development to calculate the estimated total
generated from future residents and employees. The per capital weighted average of 76.74 percent is
used to allocate the majority of the revenue generated from residential development, with the other
23.26 percent of total revenue in non-residential development. The total Transfer-in revenue is
approximately $28,866, which accounts for an estimate of 11.10 percent of total general fund.
Detailed calculation is shown on Table C-1.
EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY
Expenditure estimates are based on the adjusted City’s FY 2014–15 adopted operating budget and
supplemental information from City’s public available information. All City General Fund expenditure
items and expenditure-estimating procedures are listed on Table D-1. All departmental manager
salaries and one-time capital expenditures from Transfer-out are excluded from the analysis to offset
343
Applied Development Economics | Page 8
the fiscal year’s significant amount of capital improvement projects as a result of development
revenue generated from the Apple Campus 2 Development Agreement. The Project fiscal impact
analysis relies on per persons served methodology to estimate all General Fund expenditure impacts
of new development on the City. The per persons served method assumes the marginal cost of the
City’s services to new Project residents and employees would equal the City’s existing average-cost
structure.
Expenditures affected by both residents and employees are projected using a per-person-served
average expenditure multiplier, while expenditures affected by residents only are projected using a
per-capital average expenditure multiplier and a weighted per capita of 76.74 percent allocation of
total costs.
Table D-1 shows the weighted per capita adjustment factors used in this Analysis. These adjustment
factors are based on the weighted per capita percentage factor calculated in Table B-1 and ADE’s
experience on other similar fiscal analyses and account for the size and land use composition of the
Project as compared to that of the existing City.
Expenditure Adjustment Factors
The net General Fund costs for each department reflects that department’s allocated share of indirect
costs, such as those costs for information technology, vehicle replacement, insurance, etc. By
accounting for the indirect costs within the specific department functions, the impact of new growth on
that department’s costs would include the indirect cost allocations as well. ADE has also adjusted the
general fund revenue and costs to eliminate one time expenses from staffs that are likely fixed costs,
such as salaries of directors for each departments, as shown in Table B-3.
General Government Expenditure
ADE uses a percentage factor of total the net General Fund costs to calculate the percentage cost
allocation for each land use. Table D-1 shows General Government cost is 8.16 percent of total
General Fund Expenditure. The general fund expenditure allocation for each residential and
nonresidential development use this percentage to determine the total project revenue, as shown in
Table A-2.
FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS
Table A-1 and Table A-2 identifies General Fund fiscal impact results of the Project Analysis.
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
The fiscal impact summary and the City’s general fund overview are shown in Table A-1 through A-
4. The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices B through E
(Appendices B-1 through E-1) of this memorandum:
344
Applied Development Economics | Page 9
Table A indicates the summary fiscal impact, the City’s general fund, and adjusted General Fund
allocation.
Table B shows the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
Table C identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the City’s
General Fund.
Table D details the estimated expenditures for the City to provide General Fund services to the
Project.
Table E shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for
calculating property tax and retail sales revenues.
APPENDICES:
Table A: Fiscal Impact Summary and City of Cupertino Adopted Budget FY 2014-2015
Table B: General Assumptions
Table C: Revenue Estimating Procedures
Table D: Expenditure Estimating Procedures
Table E: Supporting Revenue Estimates
345
Applied Development Economics | Page 10
TABLE A:
Fiscal Impact Summary
Table A-1 Fiscal Impact Summary Table for The Oaks (2015$)
Table A-2 The Oaks Estimated Summary Fiscal Impact (2015$)
Table A-3 City of Cupertino Adopted Budget FY 2014-2015
Table A-4 City of Cupertino Adopted Budget FY 2014-2015 – Adjusted Estimate by Department
TABLE A-1
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE OAKS (2015$)
Total Project Revenues $277,921
Total Project Expenditures $162,408
Existing Net Impact $115,513
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc.
346
Applied Development Economics | Page 11
TABLE A-2
THE OAKS ESTIMATED SUMMARY FISCAL IMPACT (2015$)
ITEM REFERENCE % OF TOTAL
ANNUAL
FISCAL
IMPACT AT
BUILDOUT
EXISTING LAND USE
OFFICE RETAIL
GENERAL FUND
Annual Revenue Appendix C-1
Sales Tax Appendix C-2, C-2A, C-
2B, E-1 63.73% $177,108 $20,262 $156,846
Property Tax Appendix C-1 13.56% $37,675 $10,334 $27,341
Transient Occupancy N/A 0.00% $0 $0 $0
Utility Tax Appendix C-1 1.02% $2,829 $1,158 $1,671
Franchise Fees Appendix C-1 2.01% $5,579 $2,283 $3,295
Other Taxes Appendix C-1 1.71% $4,764 $1,950 $2,814
Licenses & Permits Appendix C-1 1.11% $3,081 $1,261 $1,820
Use of Money and Property Appendix C-1 0.26% $731 $299 $432
Intergovernmental Appendix C-1 0.86% $2,395 $980 $1,415
Charges for Services Appendix C-1 5.18% $14,391 $5,890 $8,501
Fines & Forfeitures Appendix C-1 0.18% $502 $205 $297
Miscellaneous Appendix C-1 0.00% $0 $0 $0
Transfer-In Appendix C-1 10.39% $28,866 $11,815 $17,051
Total General Fund Revenue 100.00% $277,921 $56,438 $221,483
Annual Expenditure Appendix D-1
General Government Appendix D-1 7.54% $12,253 $5,015 $7,238
Police Appendix D-1 11.86% $19,260 $7,883 $11,377
Public Affairs Appendix D-1 4.79% $7,785 $3,186 $4,598
Recreation and Community Services Appendix D-1 0.00% $0 $0 $0
Planning and Community Development Appendix D-1 9.85% $15,998 $6,548 $9,450
Public Works Appendix D-1 35.54% $57,716 $23,623 $34,093
Non-Departmental and Transfers Appendix D-1 30.41% $49,396 $20,218 $29,178
Total General Fund Expenditure 100.00% $162,408 $66,474 $95,934
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $115,513 ($10,036) $125,549
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; KT Urban; ADE, Inc.
347
Applied Development Economics | Page 12
TABLE A-3
CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2014-15 (2015$)
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ITEMS % OF TOTAL
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTED BUDGET FY
2014/15
GENERAL FUND [1]
Annual Revenue
Sales Tax 17.92% $18,288,000
Property Tax 14.76% $15,067,000
Transient Occupancy 4.42% $4,510,000
Utility Tax 3.04% $3,100,000
Franchise Fees 2.84% $2,897,000
Other Taxes 5.12% $5,220,000
Licenses & Permits 1.57% $1,600,000
Use of Money and Property 0.78% $801,000
Intergovernmental 2.57% $2,623,943
Charges for Services 15.45% $15,768,164
Fines & Forfeitures 0.54% $550,000
Miscellaneous 0.00% $0
Transfer-In 30.99% $31,627,286
Total General Fund Revenue 100.00% $102,052,393
Annual Expenditure
Employee Compensation 14.20% $16,963,296
Employee Benefits 6.83% $8,163,673
Materials 4.32% $5,156,146
Contract Services 18.45% $22,047,745
Contingencies 1.48% $1,768,552
Cost Allocation 4.62% $5,519,694
Special Projects 2.53% $3,027,388
Capital Outlays 16.56% $19,788,794
Debt Service/Other Uses 3.71% $4,427,838
Transfer Out 27.30% $32,613,286
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures 100.00% $119,476,412
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) ($17,424,019)
Annual GF Surplus (Deficit) per Residential Unit ($222.49)
"budget"
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] The City's FY 2014-2015 Final Adopted Budget reflects the City's receipt of large on-time dollar from the Apple Campus 2
Development Agreement. Several one-time special and capital projects reflect a higher annual expenditure relative to previous
years. For the purpose of the Analysis, these one-time capital improvement costs and departmental director salaries are not
included as part of the Analysis, as shown in Appendix A-4.
348
Applied Development Economics | Page 13
TABLE A-4
CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2014-15 (2015$) - ADJUSTED ESTIMATE BY DEPARTMENT
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
ADJUSTMENT
[2]
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ITEMS
ADOPTED BUDGET
FY 2014/15
LESS
OFFSETTING
ONE-TIME
CIP AND
STAFF
SALARY
EXPENSES
NET ANNUAL
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE AND
EXPENSES
% OF
TOTAL
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
GENERAL FUND BY DEPARTMENT Annual Revenue By Department
Sales Tax $18,288,000 $0 $18,288,000 17.9%
Property Tax $15,067,000 $0 $15,067,000 14.8%
Transient Occupancy $4,510,000 $0 $4,510,000 4.4%
Utility Tax $3,100,000 $0 $3,100,000 3.0%
Franchise Fees $2,897,000 $0 $2,897,000 2.8%
Other Taxes $5,220,000 $0 $5,220,000 5.1%
Licenses & Permits $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 1.6%
Use of Money and Property $801,000 $0 $801,000 0.8%
Intergovernmental $2,623,943 $0 $2,623,943 2.6%
Charges for Services $15,768,164 $0 $15,768,164 15.5%
Fines & Forfeitures $550,000 $0 $550,000 0.5%
Miscellaneous $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Transfer-In $31,627,286 $0 $31,627,286 31.0%
Total General Fund Revenue $102,052,393 $0 $102,052,39
3 100.0%
Annual Expenditure By Department
[1]
General Government $7,900,711 $616,690 $7,284,021 7.5%
Police $10,175,620 $174,350 $10,001,270 10.4%
Public Affairs $4,203,524 $161,114 $4,042,410 4.2%
Recreation and Community Services $11,506,514 $250,290 $11,256,224 11.7%
Planning and Community Development $8,438,292 $130,720 $8,307,572 8.6%
Public Works $30,343,173 $372,735 $29,970,438 31.1%
Non-Departmental and Transfers $33,764,940 $8,115,000 $25,649,940 26.6%
Total Annual General Fund
Expenditures $106,332,774 $9,820,89
9 $96,511,875 100.0%
Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) ($4,280,381) ($9,820,89
9) $5,540,518
Annual GF Surplus (Deficit) per
Residential Unit ($54.66) ($125.40) $70.75
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] ADE allocated expenses based on individual departments in the City's budget.
[2] Offsetting staff expenses are adjusted from department budget to account for departmental directors' one -time fixed salary expenses.
Several one-time special and capital projects reflect a higher annual expenditure relative to previous years. For the purpose of the Analysis,
these one-time capital improvement are adjusted from Transfers-out and the costs are not included as part of the Analysis.
Note: 2014 CIP Projects, excluded from Analysis, include updated accessibility transition plan, Calabazas Creek outfall repai r, Civic Center Plan
Updates, Library story room expansion, Linda Vista Pond Repair, McClellan Ranch Preserve Upgrade, McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements
Phase 1, Monta Vista Storm Drain System, Public Building Solar Installation, Quinlan Center Interior Upgrade, Quinlan Communi ty Center Fiber
Installation, Storm Drain Master Plan Update, Sports Center Court, Sports Center Tennis Court retaining wall replacement
349
Applied Development Economics | Page 14
TABLE B:
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
Table B-1 Total Citywide Residential and Employee Population
Table B-2 Existing Land Use Summary
Table B-3 Total Existing Residential and Employee Population
350
Applied Development Economics | Page 15
TABLE B-1
TOTAL CITYWIDE RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION
ITEM ASSUMPTION
General Assumptions
Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2014-2015
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Cupertino
Population [2] 59,756
Employees (2013) [3] 37,115
City of Cupertino Persons Served [4] 78,314
City of Cupertino Visitors -
Percent per Capita Weight for Residential 76.30%
Inflationary/Appreciation Factors
Property Tax 2.0%
Other Revenue 3.0%
Costs 3.0%
Estimated Citywide Assessed Value [5] 17,100,000,000
Source: California Department of Finance; California Employment Development Department; ADE
[1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 approved final budget. Revenues and expenditures are in 2015 dollars. This
analysis does not reflect changes in values resulting from inflation or appreciation.
[2] Based on population estimates from the California Department of Finance (DOF) data for January 1, 2015.
[3] Based on 2013 US Census obtained from Onthemap.ces.census.gov and adjusted by additional 10% to account for self-employed
workers.
[4] Defined as total population plus half of total employees.
[5] Total citywide FY2013-2014 assessed value based on Financial Report from County of Santa Clara.
351
Applied Development Economics | Page 16
TABLE B-2
EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
LAND USE
EXISTING BUILDING
SQUARE FEET [3]
NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES SQ. FT.
Office
Office 17,553
Subtotal Office 17,553
Retail/Commercial
Retail 46,442
Subtotal Retail/Commercial 46,442
Total Nonresidential Land Uses 63,995
Other Land Uses [2]
Open Spaces (OS) -
Total Other Land Uses -
Total Nonresidential, and Other Uses 63,995
Major Streets, Parking and Infrastructure
[1]
Below Grade Parking
Surface Parking
Total Parking 0
Total The Oaks Land Uses 63,995
Source: KT Urban, ADE, April 2015.
[1] Excluded from analysis. Landscape expenditure not included in City of Cupertino 2014 -2015 Operating Budget.
[2] Excluded from the analysis.
[3] Land use summary provided by KT Urban as of Sept 1st, 2015. Total SF exclude vacant spaces. See Table C-2C
352
Applied Development Economics | Page 17
TABLE B-3
TOTAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION
LAND USE
PER UNIT/SQ.
FT. RESIDENTS
EXISTING
EMPLOYEES
PERSONS
SERVED
EMPLOYEE POPULATION [1]
SQ.
FT./EMPLOYEE
Office
Office 300 - 59 29
Subtotal Office 59 29
Retail/Commercial
Retail 500 - 84 42
Subtotal Retail/Commercial 84 42
Total Employee Population 143 71
Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, April 2015.
[1] Employee population based on occupied sq. ft. assumptions as shown in Appendix E-1.
[2] Total Persons Served is defined as 100% of household population plus 50% of employees.
353
Applied Development Economics | Page 18
TABLE C:
REVENUE-ESTIMATING PROCEDURE
Table C-1 Existing Non-Residential Revenue Assumptions (2015$)
Table C-2 Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue Summary (2015$)
Table C-2A Annual Sales Tax from Market Support (2015$)
Table C-2B Estimated Taxable Sales, Adjusted Retail Space Method (2015$)
Table C-2C Estimated Taxable Sales - Retail Categories and Sales Per Sq. Ft.
354
Applied Development Economics | Page 19
TABLE C-1
EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
REVENUE ITEMS
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS [5]
OFFICE RETAIL
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/
DESCRIPTION
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT/CASE
STUDY
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL
BUILDOUT
REVENUE
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT/CASE
STUDY
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL
BUILDOUT
REVENUE
REVENUE (2015$) Sales Tax [1] n/a - $20,261.87 - $156,845.7
1 Case Study
Property Taxes [2][3] n/a - $10,333.80 - $27,341.33 Case Study
Transient Occupancy [4] 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Case Study
Utility Tax 100.00% $39.58 $1,158.04 $39.58 $1,671.26 Per Person
Served
Franchise Fees 100.00% $78.05 $2,283.48 $78.05 $3,295.46 Per Person
Served
Other Taxes 100.00% $66.66 $1,950.00 $66.66 $2,814.18 Per Person
Served
Licenses & Permits 100.00% $43.11 $1,261.16 $43.11 $1,820.07 Per Person
Served
Use of Money and Property 100.00% $10.23 $299.22 $10.23 $431.83 Per Person
Served
Intergovernmental 100.00% $33.51 $980.21 $33.51 $1,414.61 Per Person
Served
Charges for Services 100.00% $201.35 $5,890.39 $201.35 $8,500.85 Per Person
Served
Fines & Forfeitures 100.00% $7.02 $205.46 $7.02 $296.51 Per Person
Served
Miscellaneous 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Per Person
Served
Transfer-In 100.00% $403.85 $11,814.77 $403.85 $17,050.74 Per Person
Served
Total Annual Revenue $56,438 $221,483
[1] Refer to Appendix C-2A and C-2B for calculation.
[2] Cities receive 5.6% of Santa Clara County property tax allocation based on the City's adopted budget for FY 2014/2015. Pr operty Tax in-lieu of VLF
and Transfer Tax not included as part of property tax calculation.
ADE uses 8.8% as a property tax factor that includes both.
[3] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Land Use_Buildout Table. Note that assessed values are expressed in 2015$ assume no real appreciation. Formula for
Transfer Tax = Assessed Value/1000*Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value*Turnover rate. Non residential Property turnover rate at 15 years, or 6.7%.
[4] Excluded in the Analysis.
[5] Adjustment factors based on the citywide weighted average per capita as shown in Appendix B -1. Non-residential adjustment factors accounts for
remaining of total revenue less residential revenue.
355
Applied Development Economics | Page 20
TABLE C-2
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE SUMMARY (2015$)
ITEM
SOURCE/
ASSUMPTION
EXISTING SALES
AND USE TAXES
Residential and Nonresidential
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from Residential
Households [1]
Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support - Residential Appendix C-2A $0
Annual Taxable Sales from Market Support - Employee Appendix C-2A $88,682
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales from Non -
Residential Development [2]
Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Retail Uses Appendix C-2B $20,846,898
Annual Business-to-Business Taxable Sales Appendix C-2B $2,678,763
Annual Taxable Sales from Total Existing
Development
$23,614,343
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $236,143
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($59,036)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $177,108
Cumulative Annual Property Tax in Lieu of Sales
Tax Revenue 0.2500% $59,036
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; LoopNet; KT Urban, ADE.
[1] Total residential taxable sales account for employees living on-site.
[2] Total nonresidential taxable sales account for retail sales per SF and office sales revenue.
356
Applied Development Economics | Page 21
TABLE C-2A
ANNUAL SALES TAX FROM MARKET SUPPORT (2015$)
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM MARKET SUPPORT
ITEM SOURCE ASSUMPTION
ANNUAL REVENUE AT
BUILDOUT
Nonresidential
Annual Taxable Sales from Employees
Employees
Non Residential Development
(Employee)
Office 29 $22,819
Retail 84 $65,863
Total Employees 114
Average Daily Taxable Sales per Employee $10
Work Days per Year 240
Taxable Sales from Employees 50.0%
Estimated Retail Capture Rate within City of
Cupertino 65.0%
Total Taxable Sales from Employees $88,682
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from
Employee
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.00% $887
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.25% ($222)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.75% $665
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue -
Office $171
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue -
Retail $494
Annual Property Tax in Lieu of Sales
Tax Revenue 0.25% $222
Total Annual Taxable Sales from Market
Support - Nonresidential $88,682
Estimated Annual Total Taxable Sales (On-
Site) [1] 0.00% $0
Estimated Annual Total Taxable Sales (Off-
Site) 100.00% $88,682
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; LoopNet; KT Urban, ADE.
[1] Existing City inventory include 3,696,327 SF of retail. The existing 63,995 SF of retail accounts for approximately 2 percent of total existing
inventory. ADE assumes Project captures 0 percent of total On-site retail spending and 100 percent of retail spending are from the City due to the
low percentage
357
Applied Development Economics | Page 22
TABLE C-2B
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES, ADJUSTED RETAIL SPACE METHOD (2015$)
ITEM
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM RETAIL
SOURCE/ASSUMPTIONS
ANNUAL REVENUE
AT BUILDOUT
Annual Taxable Sales per Square Foot [1]
Office (Business-to-Business) Table C-2C
Retail/Commercial Table C-2C
Cumulative On-Site Retail Square Feet
Office 17,553
Retail/Commercial 46,442
Total Cumulative On-Site Retail Square
Feet 63,995
Annual Taxable Sales from On-Site Retail
Development
Office $2,678,763
Retail/Commercial $18,168,134
Subtotal Annual Taxable Sales from On-
Site Retail Development $20,846,898
Less Total Annual Taxable Sales From Market
Support (within the Project) $0
Subtotal Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite
Retail Development in the City $20,846,898
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from Existing
Retail Development Excluding Market
Support
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $208,469
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($52,117)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $156,352
Business-To-Business Taxable Sales
Cumulative Office square Feet 17,553
Taxable Sales from On-Site Office
Development $2,678,763
Annual Sales Tax Revenue from Business-
To-Business Office Development
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% $26,788
Less Property Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax Rate -0.2500% ($6,697)
Total Bradley Burn Sales Tax Revenue 0.7500% $20,091
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Co-Star Portfolio Strategy; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE.
[1] Sales per Square Foot from ULI Dollars and Cents 2008, and ADE's experience for office development in Cities of San Jose,
Union City, Hayward, Pasadena, and San Luis Obispo.
358
Applied Development Economics | Page 23
TABLE C-2C
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES - RETAIL CATEGORIES AND SALES PER SQ. FT.
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM RETAIL (NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS)
THE OAKS CURRENT
TENANTS CATEGORY
SUITE
NUMBER
LEASED
SQ. FT.
VACANT
SQ. FT. SOURCE
RETAIL SUB-
CATEGORY
MEDIAN
SALES
PER SQ.
FT.
(2015$)
TOP 10
% SALES
PER SQ.
FT.
(2015$)
ANNUAL NET
IMPACT (MEDIAN
SALES PER SQ.
FT.)
ANNUAL NET
IMPACT (TOP 10
% SALES PER SQ.
FT.)
ANNUAL TAXABLE
SALES PER SQUARE
FOOT [1]
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
SHOPPING
CENTERS
Subtotal
Information Deleted Due to Confidentiality
359
Applied Development Economics | Page 24
TABLE C-2C
ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES - RETAIL CATEGORIES AND SALES PER SQ. FT.
SALES AND USE TAXES FROM RETAIL (NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS)
THE OAKS CURRENT
TENANTS CATEGORY
SUITE
NUMBER
LEASED
SQ. FT.
VACANT
SQ. FT. SOURCE
RETAIL SUB-
CATEGORY
MEDIAN
SALES
PER SQ.
FT.
(2015$)
TOP 10
% SALES
PER SQ.
FT.
(2015$)
ANNUAL NET
IMPACT (MEDIAN
SALES PER SQ.
FT.)
ANNUAL NET
IMPACT (TOP 10
% SALES PER SQ.
FT.)
ANNUAL TAXABLE
SALES PER SQUARE
FOOT [1]
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
SHOPPING
CENTERS
Average
Cumulative On-Site
Retail Square Feet
Office
Retail/Commercial
Total Cumulative
On-Site Retail
Square Feet
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Co-Star Portfolio Strategy; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE.
[1] Sales per Square Foot from ULI Dollars and Cents 2008, and ADE's experience for office development in Cities of San Jose, Union City, Hayward, Pasadena, and San Luis Obispo.
360
Applied Development Economics | Page 25
TABLE D:
EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING PROCEDURE
Table D-1 Non-Residential Expenditure Assumptions (2015$)
361
Applied Development Economics | Page 26
TABLE D-1
ANNUAL NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
EXPENDITURE ITEMS [1]
ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PER EMPLOYEE/CASE STUDY
ESTIMATING
PROCEDURE/
DESCRIPTION
OFFICE RETAIL
PER EMPLOYEE
UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL
BUILDOUT
EXPENDITURES
PER
EMPLOYEE
UNIT
MULTIPLIER
TOTAL BUILDOUT
EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE (2015$) General Government 8.16% n/a $5,015.06 n/a $7,237.60 Case Study
Police 100.00% $269.47 $7,883.24 $269.47 $11,376.87 Per Persons Served
Public Affairs 100.00% $108.92 $3,186.32 $108.92 $4,598.41 Per Persons Served
Recreation and Community
Services 0.00% $303.28 $0.00 $303.28 $0.00 Per Persons Served
Planning and Community
Development 100.00% $223.83 $6,548.22 $223.83 $9,450.22 Per Persons Served
Public Works 100.00% $807.50 $23,623.41 $807.50 $34,092.64 Per Persons Served
Non-Departmental and Transfers 100.00% $691.09 $20,217.89 $691.09 $29,177.89 Per Persons Served
Total Annual Expenditure $66,474 $95,934
Source: City of Cupertino FY 2014/2015 Adopted Final Operating Budget; ADE, Inc.
[1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Per Employee Expenditure
362
Applied Development Economics | Page 27
TABLE E:
SUPPORTING REVENUE ESTIMATES
Table E-1 Existing Land Use Assumptions (2015$)
363
Applied Development Economics | Page 28
TABLE E-1
EXISTING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$)
LAND USE
ESTIMATED
ASSESSED
VALUE PER
SF [1]
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
ASSESSED
VALUE [1]
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
TURNOVER
RATE [5,6]
EMPLOYEE/
SQ. FT. [2]
VACANCY
RATE [3]
OCCUPIED
UNITS [4]
NONRESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT. TOTAL AV
EMPLOYEE/
SQ. FT.
OCCUPIED
SQ. FT.
Office
Office $669 $11,742,957 6.7% 300 10.2% 17,553
Retail/Commercial (RC)
Retail $669 $31,069,698 6.7% 550 10.2% 46,442
Vacant Sq.
Ft. [4]
Vacant SF $669 $4,856,271 7,259
Total Nonresidential
Sq. Ft. $47,668,926 71,254
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; KT Urban, ADE.
[1] Nonresidential values based on RCA sales record of approximately $48,000,000 sales price on Feb 15, 2015. Approximate per SF value is $669.
[2] Based on average persons per household (population in occupied housing units in structure), ADE.
[3] Vacancy rates assumptions for office and retail based on information from KT Urban. Vacancy rates are excluded from the Analysis.
[4] Occupied and vacant sq. ft. based on information from KT Urban.
[5] Property turnover rate at 7 years based on ADE research.
[6] Property turnover rate at 15 years based on ADE research.
364
From: Kent Vincent [mailto:deanza_travel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Darcy Paul
Subject: Fw: General Plan Amendment Authorization
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kent Vincent <deanza_travel@yahoo.com>
To: "bchang@cupertino.org" <bchang@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:43 AM
Subject: General Plan Amendment Authorization
Dear Barry,
Just received a mailer announcing proposals for more hotel and mixed use development in Cupertino at
the Goodyear Tire and Oaks Shopping Center sites requiring a General Plan amendment. I am
profoundly disappointed that the City must put its residents through this process, over and over
again. The General Plan is the covenant that the Council has with the constituency residents defining
what development can be approved within the city. The Council, thereby, should have a reputation of
upholding its General Plan against such proposals. It obviously doesn't and that's why developers are
willing to heavily invest in proposals that breach the General Plan and why residents are forcing the
issue with an initiative to enforce compliance. As our new Mayor, I hope you will mark your legacy as a
people's servant protecting the quality of Cupertino and vigorously upholding the General Plan against
developer's profit motives.
All the best,
Kent Vincent
Cupertino
From: Byron Rovegno [mailto:brovegno@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:38 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: The Oaks Project
10497 Chace Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
January 27, 2016
Dear Council Member:
I am writing to you about the proposed development of the Oaks property. Larry Dean and I
met with Mark Tersini in November of 2015 to discuss their plans. It is their stated objective,
with the approval of Caltrans and the City Community Development Staff, to revise their plans
to include the creation of a bike path that will enable the movement of bicycles, and
pedestrians along the western perimeter of The Oaks property from Mary Avenue to Stevens
Creek Boulevard; however, you will not find it designated on the plans that they submitted to
the City as these plans were completed beforehand.
365
Also we were pleased to learn that The Oaks designs and plans anticipate a full complement of
bicycle lockers for residents and office tenants. They told us that they hope to have a “bicycle
hub” that will offer assistance with minor bicycle repairs for cyclists who use the shopping
center, or who pass through the area. They also expressed interest in our request that they
include charging stations for electric bicycles.
While I do not opine on the scale and scope of the project, I am pleased that consideration of
pedestrians and cyclists is part of their design criteria and encourage the council to approve
such inclusive aspects of their plans.
Sincerely,
Byron P. Rovegno
Walk Bike Cupertino Advisory Board Member
366
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4223464&GUID=9A249CCC-697B-4A8E-8D5B-299C723DE4C2[1/28/2016 5:27:29 PM]
Embedded Secure Document
The file https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4223464&GUID=9A249CCC-697B-4A8E-8D5B-
299C723DE4C2 is a secure document that has been embedded in this document. Double click the pushpin to view.
367
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4223465&GUID=904484DF-71E1-4FE9-B9E4-3FC4BC04AA3C[1/28/2016 5:27:30 PM]
Embedded Secure Document
The file https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4223465&GUID=904484DF-71E1-4FE9-B9E4-
3FC4BC04AA3C is a secure document that has been embedded in this document. Double click the pushpin to view.
368
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1352 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/12/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Construction Project Updates
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Construction Project Updates
Receive updates
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™369
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1367 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/14/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/2/2016
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/2/20161
Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 1/28/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™370