Cupertino City Council
December 2, 2025

23308‐04 Mary Ave Phase II Peer Rev
which is based on the non‐cancer hazard. Typically, the lower of the ESLs for cancer risk and non‐cancer hazard is referenced as the appropriate ESL.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that arsenic concentrations detected at the Site were below established background arsenic concentrations for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg and references the December 2011 background arsenic study titled Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region by Dylan Duverge.

Baseline notes that this 2011 background arsenic study lists a range of arsenic concentrations detected in the northern Santa Clara Valley as being up to 20 mg/kg; however, it concludes that 11 mg/kg is an appropriate upper estimate (99th percentile) of regional background concentrations of arsenic, and 11 mg/kg is typically referred to as a screening level for naturally occurring  background arsenic in the Bay Area. The concentration of arsenic detected at the Site range from 3.51 to 7.25 mg/kg, and therefore these arsenic concentrations appear to be naturally occurring background concentrations.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that based on the concentrations detected, arsenic and OCPs are not contaminants of concern, while lead is considered to be a contaminant of concern. Lead was detected in seven of the soil samples with concentrations that are typical of background conditions with the exception of the soil sample collected from boring B2 (near the center of the landscaped area on the Site) at 2 feet (sample ID B2‐2), which was reported to contain 680 mg/kg of lead, exceeding the Residential ESL (80 mg/kg) and Construction Worker ESL (160 mg/kg). To evaluate whether the soil represented by sample B2‐ 2 would be a hazardous waste, when excavated, the sample was analyzed for soluble lead by the Waste Extraction Test (WET) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential (TCLP) methods.

Soluble lead analyzed by the WET method was detected at a concentration of 18 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of 5 mg/L. Soluble lead analyzed by the TCLP method was detected at a concentration of 1.1 mg/L, which is below the TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L. Based on the total and soluble lead results, the soil represented by sample B2‐2 would be classified as non‐Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (non‐RCRA) hazardous waste (or California hazardous waste) for waste disposal purposes.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended additional soil sampling in the area of boring B2 prior to Site redevelopment to further define the extent of lead impacted soil and minimize the volume of soil being removed from the property as a California hazardous waste.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that if soil represented by sample B2‐ 2 would not be below a proposed building, as the new building would create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property.

Memorandum
May 16, 2025

Baseline notes that while capping of lead impacted soil beneath buildings would reduce the likelihood of exposure for future Site occupants, this remedial approach is not adequate without appropriate engineering controls, institutional controls, and regulatory oversight to ensure that the lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future Site occupants or construction/maintenance workers. For situations where contaminated soil is capped, regulatory agencies typically require the establishment of a deed restriction and implementation of operation and maintenance activities to ensure that future Site occupants and construction/maintenance workers are aware of the remedial cap and contaminated soil conditions, and to ensure that the contaminated soil would remain capped and not be disturbed without appropriate precautions.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report also recommends that a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a Site‐Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property due to the detected concentrations of arsenic and lead. Baseline generally agrees with these recommendations; however, Baseline notes that response actions such as preparation and implementation of an SMP are typically not performed (or required by regulatory agencies) to address naturally occurring background concentrations of metals. The health and safety of construction workers is ultimately the responsibility of the contractor. The project applicant should provide the project contractor with the results of all soil sampling performed at the Site, and the contractor must prepare and implement an appropriate SSHSP that addresses potential exposure to soil as required by California Code of Regulations Title 8.

Subsurface Investigation Report
The Subsurface Investigation Report describes sampling and analysis of soil that was performed at the Site including the sampling and analytical results discussed in the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report, and additional sampling performed to evaluate the extent of lead impacted soil identified by sample B2‐2. Two borings, B7 and B8, were advanced approximately 10 feet north and south of boring B2, respectively.  Soil samples were collected from depths of

0.5 and 2 feet bgs, and the samples were analyzed for lead. Based on our review of the Subsurface Investigation Report, it appears that appropriate soil sampling and laboratory analytical methods were performed.

The analytical results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8 revealed background concentrations of lead, indicating that the elevated lead is a localized condition in the area of boring B‐2. The Subsurface Investigation Report also recommended that if soil represented by sample B2‐2 would not be below a proposed building, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. The Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that an SMP and SSHSP should be prepared for the proposed project that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil.

Memorandum
May 16, 2025

Baseline notes that the lateral extent of lead impacted soil appears to have been defined to the north and south of boring B‐2, however the vertical extent of lead impacted soil in the area of boring B2 has not been defined. Lead contamination from ADL is typically confined to the upper few feet of soil, and excavation of lead impacted soil at the Mary Avenue Dog Park (located adjacent to the north of the Site) extended to a maximum depth of below 2 feet bgs,1 which suggests that the impacts from lead at the Site may also be limited to the upper few feet of soil.

The lateral extent of lead impacted soil was also not defined to the east or west of boring B‐2, however boring B‐2 was located very close to the western Site boundary, and the east‐west dimension of the Site is relatively narrow (approximately 50 to 60 feet).

Baseline considers the detection of lead at a concentration exceeding the Residential ESL and Construction Worker ESL in sample B2‐2 to be a potentially unacceptable health risk for construction workers and future residential occupants of the Site. Section 17.04.050(B) of the City’s Municipal Code indicates:

If a Focused or other Phase II ESA, as required pursuant to Section 17.04.040(B)(1), identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the project applicant shall, depending on the contaminant, contact either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agency oversight program with an appropriate regulatory agency, or an established voluntary oversight program alternative with an appropriate regulatory agency, as determined by the City, and follow the regulatory agency’s recommended response actions until the agency reaches a no further action determination, prior to issuance of any permit for a project that allows ground disturbing activity.

Based on the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, Baseline recommends that the project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as an appropriate regulatory agency to oversee soil remediation at the Site.

Baseline recommends approval of the permit application for the project from a hazardous materials contamination standpoint, with the following conditions:

Remediation of lead impacted soil at the Site should be performed in accordance with an SMP prepared and implemented under regulatory agency oversight. The SMP should be prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional, and should be submitted to the City 1 TRC, 2013. Environmental Services, Soil Removal Completion Report, Cupertino Dog Park, Cupertino, California, December 18.

Memorandum
May 16, 2025

and the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval. The SMP should include the following:
 A description of the precise extent of proposed contaminated soil removal, proposed remediation goals, and detailed procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for off‐Site disposal or on‐Site re‐use, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material.
 Measures to prevent potential exposure of the surrounding public to contaminants that could be released in fugitive dust (e.g., dust control procedures, air monitoring protocols, and air monitoring action levels) during the removal of contaminated soil and other construction activities, in addition to preventing potential exposure of future Site occupants to contaminated soil.
 Notification procedures and response actions that would be taken if previously unidentified soil contamination or underground features of environmental concern (e.g., sumps, underground storage tanks) are identified during project construction activities.
 A requirement that all remedial excavation and contaminated soil handling and disposal activities be overseen by a qualified Environmental Professional, and that all confirmation and waste characterization soil sampling be performed by a qualified Environmental Professional.

The excavation and off‐Site disposal of contaminated soil and confirmation sampling results should be documented in a Completion Report prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional which should be submitted to the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval, and the project applicant should provide the City with written evidence that the regulatory oversight agency has issued a no further action determination for the Site prior to the City issuing any permits that would allow other ground disturbing activity (beyond soil remediation) at the Site.

Exhibit C
Memorandum
Date: November 13, 2025
To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing
From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Andrea Lin
Subject: Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the SR 85 soundwall and Mary Avenue. The project proposes constructing 2 twostory buildings with a total of 40 dwelling units (19 affordable disabled housing units and 21 affordable housing units) and 20 on-site parking spaces (18 regular spaces and 2 accessible spaces) on a 0.8- acre site. Access to the buildings would be provided via 2 two-way driveways on Mary Avenue. The project site location and site plan are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Scope of Study
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts and operational issues related to the proposed development. The transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies established in the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Study (TS) Guidelines (January 2025). This study consists of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and a transportation analysis per the TS Guidelines.

As discussed below, the project would result in an increase in net vehicle trip generation of 163 daily trips, which is within the definition of a Tier 2 project (projects with trip generation between 110 and 1,000 daily vehicle trips and less than 100 peak hour trips). Based on the City’s TS Guidelines, a Tier 2 transportation analysis requires an off-site intersection operations analysis, review of General Plan consistency, a parking supply evaluation, a site access and circulation assessment, and a safety assessment. The intersection operations analysis includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peakhour traffic conditions at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

VMT Analysis
Transportation impacts under CEQA are measured using VMT. The City of Cupertino TS Guidelines provide VMT exemption screening criteria for development projects. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd Peninsula Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersection
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 2
Site Circulation Plan
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 4
Per the TS Guidelines, a project may be screened out if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) a project located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA; (2) local-serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; or (3) land-use projects consisting of 100% affordable housing. The project would provide 100% affordable housing; thus, it is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and would not require detailed VMT analysis.

Existing Transportation System
The existing transportation system in the project study area is described below. Included are descriptions of the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit services.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 85. Local access to the site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue. These facilities are described below.

SR 85 is a six-lane freeway with two mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 extends north through Mountain View, connecting with US 101, and south through San Jose, connecting again with US 101. Access to the project site is provided via its interchange with Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is an east-west roadway classified as a boulevard (arterial) in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Ridgeway Drive in the west to Bascom Avenue in the east. In the vicinity of the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard has 6 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, buffered bike lanes in each direction, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Mary Avenue/Campus Drive.

Stelling Road is a north-south roadway classified as an avenue (major collector) in the City’s General Plan. It extends past Homestead Road in the north and past Prospect Road to the south. In the vicinity of the project site, Stelling Road has 4 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, and striped bike lanes in each direction. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Mary Avenue is a two-lane north-south local street classified as a neighborhood connector in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Meteor Drive in the north to Campus Drive in the south. Mary Avenue has sidewalks on the east side of the street and on the west side of the street for the most part, except along the project frontage. It has buffered and protected (Class IV) bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street north of Morro Bay Terrace. The parking is diagonal on the west side and parallel on the east side. The project would remove parking on the east side and change the west side to parallel parking. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Mary Avenue provides direct access to the project site.

Existing Transit Services
Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA bus routes in the project vicinity and the bus stops near the project site are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3.

The closest bus stop is located about 2,100 feet away near the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop located at De Anza College is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stelling Road are more than a half mile from the project site.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 5
Table 1
Existing Transit Services
Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities that exist in the project vicinity (see Figure 4) include bike lanes and bike routes.

Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists.

Bike lanes are present on Mary Avenue (Class IV parking-protected on a portion of the west side between Lubec Street and Morro Bay Terrace and on a portion of the east side between the north end of Mary Avenue Dog Park and the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot entrance, and Class IIB buffered lanes on the rest of the street), Stevens Creek Boulevard (Class II), Bubb Road (Class IV), and Stelling Road (Class II). A bike route in the area connects the project to local schools like Garden Gate Elementary school. In the project vicinity, the route is present along Lubec Street (east of Mary Avenue), Anson Avenue (north of Lubec Street) Milford Drive, Castine Avenue (north of Milford Drive) and Greenleaf Drive.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, ADA compliant curb ramps, and crosswalks at many of the nearby intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks exist along the east side of Mary Avenue and both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Campus Drive, and Stelling Road.

There is no sidewalk on the west side of Mary Avenue along the project frontage and the Dog Park.

There are two high-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue at unsignalized intersections along the street: one at Lubec Street north of the site and the other at the driveway for the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot, south of the site, with rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). At the signalized intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, high-visibility crosswalks are provided across the north, south, east and west legs of the intersection.

Headways1
Route Route Description (minutes)
Local Routes
Route 51 Moffett Field/Ames Research Center -
West Valley College 5:50 AM to 8:00 PM 30 Mary Ave at Stevens Creek Boulevard 2,100 Route 55 Old Ironsides Station - De Anza College 5:20 AM to 10:50 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,600
Route 252 De Anza College - Alum Rock via Valley
Medical Center 5:45 AM to 10:30 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700 Frequent Routes
Route 23 De Anza College - Alum Rock via
Stevens Creek Boulevard 4:50 AM to 1:30 AM 15 De Anza College (Campus Road) 2,600
Rapid 523 San Jose State University - Lockheed
Martin via De Anza Boulevard 5:20 AM to 11:30 PM 20 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700 Notes:

2. Route 25 provides frequent service between Alum Rock Station and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and less frequent service between Alum Rock Station and De Anza College.

Weekday Hours
of Operation Nearby Bus Stops
Walking Distance
from Nearest Stop to
Project Site (feet)

1. Headways during weekday peak periods as of October 2025.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
23 23
523
51 55
25 523
23, 51,
523
51 23, 51
51 23 55
25 85
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Site Location
LEGEND
XXX
523
XX = Local Bus Route
= Frequent Bus Route
= Rapid Bus 523
= Nearby Bus Route XX
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 3
Existing Transit Services
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
85 Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Existing Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway)
= Existing Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway)
= Existing Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB Bikeway)
= Existing Protected Bike Lanes (Class IV Bikeway)
LEGEND
= Site Location
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 8
Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed residential development was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution and assignment, directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated and project trips generated were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below:

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that show trip generation rates for many types of land uses. The data are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition. ITE does not have a category for developmentally disabled housing. The closest category for estimating trips generated by this land use is “Senior Adult Housing” as most residents of the project would likely not own cars and care takers or assistants would generate most of the trips. Using this category to represent the developmentally disabled housing units is likely a slight over-estimate of generated traffic because residents would not have cars.

Thus, trips that would be generated by the project were estimated using the ITE average trip rates for “Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily” (ITE Land Use 252) for the developmentally disabled units and “Affordable Housing” (ITE Land Use 223) for the proposed affordable housing units.

The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 2).

Table 2
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on the existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak-hour trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the trip distribution pattern, directions of approach and departure, and the roadway network connections. Project trip distribution and trip assignment are shown in Figure 5. For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all trips from the project site would pass through the study intersection at Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed
Disabled Housing 1 19 d.u. 3.25 62 0.19 1 3 4 0.25 3 2 5 Affordable Housing 2 21 d.u. 4.81 101 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 163 3 9 12 9 6 15
Notes
d.u. = dwelling units
1 2 Trip generation rate for the proposed affordable are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 223 "Affordable Housing."
Trip generation rate for the proposed housing for the developmentally disabled is based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 252 "Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily." Daily
Rate1
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
60% 40%
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 5
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
1 Campus
Dr
Ave
Mary
Blvd
Creek
Stevens
5(4)4(2)
1(4)
2(5)
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 10
Intersection Traffic Operations
This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at the study intersection and the traffic effects of the project.

Scope of Analysis
This study analyzes the traffic effects of the project at the Mary Avenue/Campus Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of commute traffic. Traffic conditions at the study location were analyzed for the weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions on the surrounding street network during a typical weekday.

Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning movement counts conducted on a typical weekday, October 7, 2025 (see Appendix A). • Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project (see Figure 5). Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential project adverse effects.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersection were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

The City of Cupertino evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. For the study, the intersection levels of service were analyzed using Synchro software in accordance with the HCM 7th Edition methodology. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations based on average control delay time for all vehicles at an intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service is shown in Table 3.

Signalized study intersections are typically subject to the local municipalities’ level of service standards. The City’s TS Guidelines (2025) do not provide level of service standards for signalized intersections. For this study, an LOS D standard was applied to the study intersection based on the 2021 TS Guidelines.

Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects
For most major intersections, a development is said to create an adverse effect on traffic conditions at a study intersection if for either hour, any of the following conditions occur:

1. The level of service at signalized intersections degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions.

2. The project would deteriorate already unacceptable operations at a signalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four or more seconds and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by 0.01 or more; or increase the v/c ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e. decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 11
Table 3
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay The 2025 TS Guidelines also provide a deficiency criterion for intersection vehicle queuing as part of evaluating the project’s effect on traffic operations. An adverse effect on signalized intersection operations would occur if for either peak hour:

1. The project traffic would cause 95th percentile vehicle queues to exceed the existing or planned length of a turn pocket, or

2. Where a queue exceeds the available storage without the project, project traffic would increase the queue by more than 50 feet.

Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6.

The traffic volumes for the existing conditions and existing plus project conditions are shown in Figure 6 and described above for the analysis scenarios.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
N Stelling
Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Signalized Intersection
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 6
Existing Lane Configuration and Study Traffic Volumes
1 Campus
Dr
Ave
Mary
Blvd
Creek
Stevens
11 Existing Volumes Existing + Project Volumes
Blvd
Creek
Campus
Dr
Stevens
Blvd
Creek
Campus
Dr
Stevens
Mary
Ave
Mary
Ave
40(84)
3(5)
9(30)
181(69)10(8)99(71)
88(43)
722(863)
94(101)
98(136)
732(1377)
107(33)
40(84)
3(5)
9(30)
186(73)10(8)103(73)
88(43)
722(863)
95(105)
100(141)
732(1377)
107(33)
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 13
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 4) show that the study intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions.

The intersection level of service calculation report is included in Appendix B.

Table 4
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Queuing Analysis
Typically, vehicle queuing analysis is done for high-demand movements at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements (10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane). The project would not be adding 10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane to any turning movement (see Figure 5). Thus, it is not expected that the addition of the project would negatively affect the existing queuing conditions.

General Plan Consistency
The project is located on Mary Avenue, which is a local street. This street is not identified on the City’s High Injury Network. The project would not conflict with the General Plan policies because the project would not affect access to roadways, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
The existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide good connectivity with continuous sidewalks from the project site to nearby points of interest, including bus stops, schools, and parks.

High-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue are provided at the unsignalized intersections at Lubec Street to the north and at Cupertino Memorial Park driveway to the south.

There is currently no sidewalk along the project frontage. The project would construct a new 4.5-footwide sidewalk along its frontage on Mary Avenue to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south and the dog park to the north. The new sidewalk is consistent with the existing sidewalk configuration within the adjacent neighborhood. The sidewalk would be buffered from traffic by a 5-foot-wide bike lane, 2.5-foot buffer, and parallel street parking. Walkways from the street frontage would provide direct access to the buildings.

The project would not affect the existing pedestrian access in the area. The project would provide adequate pedestrian facilities on site connecting pedestrians to the rest of the City’s pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The project proposes re-aligning the existing bike lane along the project frontage and converting the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces. The proposed bike lane would be 5 feet wide, which meets the minimum recommendation of 5 feet for lateral clearance of bike lanes listed in the VTA bicycle technical guidelines. The bike lane would be protected from vehicular traffic by 8-foot-wide parallel parking spaces and a 2.5 foot striped buffer between the bike lane and the LOS Peak Delay1 Delay1 Change in
# Intersection Standard Control Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Delay AM 31.6 C 31.6 C 0.0
PM 27.0 C 27.2 C 0.2
Notes:

1. Average delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized intersections. 1 Mary Ave/Campus Dr & Stevens Creek Blvd D Signal
Existing Existing plus Project
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 14
parking spaces. The project would introduce two driveways along the west side of Mary Avenue that would cross the bike lane. The project proposes using a different paving material to signal to drivers to slow down and look out for cyclists and pedestrians. The landscaping planters and curb islands next to the driveways would also provide adequate line of sights for cyclists and pedestrians.

The project proposes two pairs of reverse curves to create a lateral shift of the bike lane at the north and south ends of the project site to connect the proposed bike lane to the existing bike lane. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) design guidelines for Bike Transitions, which are adapted from the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Third Edition, was used to evaluate the proposed reverse curves. For an urban street, a design speed of 10 mph could be assumed for protected bike lanes. For an approach speed of 10 mph, NACTO recommends a minimum edge radius of 18 feet. At the north end of the site, the curve radii are less than 18 feet, which cannot accommodate a travel speed of 10 mph. At the south end of the site, the curve radii are greater than 18 feet.

Recommendation: To accommodate a design speed of 10 mph for the bike lane per NACTO’s guidelines, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph.

The proposed bicycle lane would connect to the existing bicycle lane on Mary Avenue; thus the proposed project would not conflict with any planned facilities identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Transit Services
As previously stated, the closest bus stop serves Local Route 51 and is located about 2,100 feet away at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop for Frequent Route 23 is located at De Anza College and is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops in both directions can be accessed via the existing pedestrian network. Any small increase in transit trips is expected to be accommodated by the existing transit capacity.

Parking
Vehicle Parking
The City of Cupertino minimum parking requirement for medium density multi-family housing per the City’s Zoning Code (Table 19.124.040(A)) is two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Because the project would provide 100% affordable housing, the project can qualify for the State Density Bonus Law. Per public Resources Code Section 65915(p)(2), the City may not impose minimum vehicular parking ratios for developments that include at least 20% low-income units that exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.

Therefore, for the proposed 40 dwelling units, the project would be required to provide 20 parking spaces per the State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. The project proposes a total of 20 parking spaces in an on-site parking lot. Thus, the project meets the State Density Bonus Law parking requirements.

Bicycle Parking
The City’s zoning code requires medium density multi-family developments to provide one long-term (Class I Facility) bicycle parking space per 2 residential units and one short-term (Class II Facility) bicycle parking space per 10 residential units. For the proposed 40 units, the project would be required to provide 20 long-term and 4 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The project proposes 16 inverted-U bike racks (which provide 2 bicycle parking spaces per inverted-U bike rack): 4 bike racks Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 15
in front of Building 1 near the community room, 3 bike racks north of Building 1, 1 rack in front of Building 2 near the manager’s office, 4 bike racks behind Building 1 near the elevators, and 4 bike racks behind Building 2 near the elevators. The 8 proposed bike racks in front of buildings would provide 16 short-term parking spaces for public use, which would meet the short-term bicycle parking requirement. The 8 bike racks behind the buildings near the elevators could provide 16 parking spaces for residents. However, these spaces are not protected. Thus, the project does not meet the minimum requirements for long-term bicycle parking spaces.

Recommendation: To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners), or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock).

Removal of On-Street Parking
The project would convert the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces on its frontage along Mary Avenue and remove the parallel street-parking spaces on the east side of the street across from the project frontage. This would remove 84 angled street-parking spaces on the west side and 38 parallel street-parking spaces on the east side (approximately 950 feet) and add 33 parallel parking spaces to the west side of Mary Avenue, which would result in a net loss of 89 streetparking spaces.

Hexagon previously conducted a parking study (see Appendix C) to identify the current parking supply and demand of the on-street parking on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There are currently 171 diagonal parking spaces provided along the west side and 70 parallel parking spaces provided on the east side, for a total of 241 on-street parking spaces. The parking study found the existing peak parking demand was 37 parking spaces (26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue) with 7 occupied spaces along the project frontage.

As stated previously, the project meets the vehicular parking requirements per the State Density Bonus Law with the proposed parking on site. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. Therefore, the project is not expected to increase parking demand for on street parking.

With the project, there would be 152 on-street parking spaces (with 33 parallel parking spaces along the project frontage), which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand (37 total spaces and 7 spaces along the project frontage).

Site Access and Circulation
A review of the project site plan was performed to identify the adequacy of site access and on-site circulation. This review is based on the site plan dated May 9, 2025 (see Figure 2 and Figure 7).

Vehicle access to the site would be provided via two driveways along Mary Avenue.

Driveway Design and Operations
The project proposes two driveways on Mary Avenue: one located opposite Parkwood Drive and the other about 180 feet south of that driveway. Two driveways are necessary because the project proposes angled on-site parking. The site is not wide enough to provide 90-degree parking.

Per the City’s Standard Details 1-20, driveway width for commercial/high density residential should be between 24 and 32 feet. The driveway to the north (near Building 2) would be 24 feet wide and the driveway to the south (near Building 1) would be 26 feet wide, which meets the City’s requirements for driveway width.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 16
The project-generated trips that are estimated to access both driveways are 12 trips during the AM peak hour (3 inbound and 9 outbound) and 15 trips during the PM peak hour (9 inbound and 6 outbound). Due to the low number of AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips, operational issues related to vehicle queuing or delays, or with potential pedestrian or bicycle traffic would be minimal at the project driveways.

The distance between the first 90-degree parking stall and the street edge for both of the driveways is 24 feet. Thus, there is enough room for one inbound vehicle to queue in the driveway without blocking the traffic on Mary Avenue. The maximum number of vehicles that would enter a driveway is 9 inbound vehicles during the PM peak hour, which is equivalent to approximately one vehicle every 6 minutes. Thus, no inbound queuing issues are expected at the project driveways.

Driveway Sight Distance
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling along Mary Avenue. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site and turning onto Mary Avenue. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic.

The project proposes trees that would be planted along the Mary Avenue frontage near the driveways. Per the City’s Standard Details 7-2, the canopies of the trees should be at least 8.5 feet in height so that they do not impede the view of exiting drivers. If additional frontage improvements, such as signage or additional landscaping, are proposed, they should be located so that the view of exiting drivers is not impeded or not exceed 3.5 feet in height, per the City’s Standard Details 7-2.

The minimum acceptable sight distance is considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. Mary Avenue has a speed limit of 30 mph, so the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet (based on a design speed of 35 mph).

Accordingly, a driver must be able to see 250 feet along Mary Avenue to stop and avoid a collision.

Based on the site plan and narrow travel lanes on Mary Avenue, on-street parking next to the project driveways would potentially block the line of sight of exiting drivers (see Figure 8).

Recommendation: To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to oneway as recommended below, only the parking spaces next to the outbound driveway (south driveway) need to be removed. The on-street parking supply would still be adequate with the reduction of these six parallel parking spaces.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 7
Proposed Parking Lot Plan
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 8
Sight Distance
LEGEND
= Recommended Parallel Parking Spaces to be Removed
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 19
On-Site Circulation and Stall Dimensions
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The project would provide an on-site surface parking lot (20 parking spaces) with a oneway aisle. In the parking lot, there would be two 90-degree parking spaces on the north end, two 90- degree parking spaces on the south end, and 16 angled parking spaces (60 degrees) along the west side of the parking lot (see Figure 7).

The driveways to access the parking lot would be two-way driveways that are 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide with a 26-foot-wide drive aisle to access the 90-degree parking spaces. The drive aisle to access the 60-degree angled parking spaces would be a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide.

Recommendation: For improved circulation, it is recommended that the driveways are one-way, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only.

Per the City of Cupertino’s Zoning Code Table 19.124.040(B), the minimum parking stall dimensions should be 8.5 feet wide and 18 feet long. Two-way drive aisles to access 90-degree parking spaces should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. The 90-degree parking spaces on the north and south ends of the parking lot would be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 16 feet long and would be accessed by a drive aisle that is 26 feet wide. The parking spaces include a 2-foot overhang into the walkway in front of the spaces, which effectively would provide a 6-foot walkway (sufficient for pedestrians to travel through). Based on the site plan, the proposed 90-degree parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum stall dimensions.

Per Table 19.124.040(B), a one-way aisle to access 60-degree angle parking spaces should be a minimum of 13 feet wide. Based on the proposed parking lot plan, the 60-degree angle parking spaces would be 8.5 feet wide, 18 feet long, and have a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide. Thus, the project’s angled parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum requirements.

Emergency Vehicle Access and Circulation
The City of Cupertino Fire Department requires a minimum driveway width of 20 feet, requires turnarounds for driveways more than 150 feet in length, and requires a minimum of 13.5 feet of vertical clearance. The project site has a maximum depth of 42 feet from Mary Avenue. Therefore, Mary Avenue would serve as the project’s fire access road.

Garbage Truck Access and Circulation
Concrete trash pads/enclosures are shown in the parking lot. All garbage collection activities would occur on-site. Garbage trucks would need to pull into one of the driveways, perform garbage collection activities, back out onto Mary Avenue, and pull into the other driveway to perform the rest of the garbage collection activities. The truck would encroach onto the opposite travel lane when turning into and out of the driveways. However, because of the relatively low volumes on Mary Avenue, it is not expected that this would cause any operational issues. Figure 7 shows site access and circulation for garbage trucks.

Safety Assessment
The project would not alter any streets in the area. The project driveways and the internal aisles on site are designed in accordance with city standards. The project would generate mostly passenger vehicles, and the surrounding roadway system is designed to accommodate these vehicles.

Therefore, the project would not worsen existing geometric hazards or create new geometric hazards.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 20
Conclusions
The transportation analysis for the Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project resulted in the following conclusions:
• Trip Generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 new daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour.
• Intersection Operation. The Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions. • Site Access and Circulation. The site access and circulation review resulted in the following recommendations:
o Long-term Bicycle Parking. To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners, or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock).
o Sight Distance. To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to one-way as recommended below, only parking spaces next to the outbound driveway need to be removed.
o Site Circulation. It is recommended that the driveways be one-way access, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only. o Bike Lane. To accommodate a design speed of 10 mph for the bike lane, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph.

ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Calculations Appendix C – Parking Study
Appendix A
Traffic Counts

STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVE (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD AM
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
290 187
904
845
200 52
937
951

0.90 N
S
W E

0.84 0.87

0.84 0.85
(592) (436)
(2,234)
(2,013)
(2,268)
(2,312)
(584) (163) 181099
94 722
83 107
732
90 5
8 10
04039 STEVENS CREEK BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

CAMPUS DRIVE

MARY AVE
5 8
7 3 N
S
W E
3 5
6 1
0 5
2 1
2 292
9 1
3 0
030
1 1
7 0
1 N
S
W E
2 0
1 0
6 30 1
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 13 67 0 5 88 218 0 1 2 1 10 12 0 16 1,098 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 15 66 1 3 115 234 0 3 0 0 3 7 1 15 1,403 7:30 AM 0 4 0 0 30 0 0 10 82 2 4 130 296 0 0 1 1 6 6 2 20 1,773 7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 22 1 4 24 94 1 7 129 350 0 2 0 1 14 22 0 29 1,975 8:00 AM 0 10 0 0 27 2 1 17 129 1 16 208 523 0 0 1 1 19 34 3 56 2,183 8:15 AM 0 14 2 0 27 4 0 25 202 1 28 196 604 2 5 3 0 25 19 4 57 2,090 8:30 AM 0 7 1 0 34 3 4 28 155 2 17 167 498 0 0 3 2 27 18 1 34 2,034 8:45 AM 0 9 0 0 11 1 3 20 246 1 22 151 558 1 3 0 2 36 23 1 34 2,069 9:00 AM 0 12 1 0 9 3 0 13 142 1 44 116 430 0 5 0 1 39 21 6 23 2,020 9:15 AM 0 17 1 0 8 1 0 10 190 0 46 160 548 2 5 0 1 58 20 7 30 9:30 AM 0 17 2 0 8 1 0 16 220 0 21 152 533 1 4 0 2 45 11 10 30 9:45 AM 0 18 1 0 18 3 0 20 167 1 24 157 509 0 3 0 3 45 24 5 26 Count Total 14 15 211 1,760 327 5,301 11 237 1,769 217 0 115 8 40 0 202 20 370 6 31 10 Peak Hour 8 90 732 5 83 722 0 40 3 0 99 10 2,183 107 94 9 181 3 8 7 5

STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVE (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD PM
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
148 231
1,007
1,478
84 119
1,546
1,027

0.97 N
S
W E

0.86 0.89

0.73 0.94
(422) (661)
(2,766)
(4,055)
(2,821)
(4,241)
(298) (406) 69071
101
863
43 33
1,377
125
0 11
8 084530 STEVENS CREEK BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

CAMPUS DRIVE

MARY AVE
7 20
2 1 N
S
W E 18 2
1 1
1 6
0 1
0 111
4 6
3 0
000
0 0
3 1
1 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0
2 20 1
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 16 3 0 12 0 5 34 370 0 17 200 739 0 9 2 1 18 20 21 23 2,666 4:15 PM 0 29 2 0 16 2 0 23 247 0 9 197 590 2 3 1 0 16 22 11 16 2,637 4:30 PM 0 20 0 0 17 1 1 19 340 0 9 186 659 1 6 0 1 18 17 14 17 2,773 4:45 PM 0 9 0 0 25 0 1 20 394 0 7 165 678 0 1 0 1 16 16 12 13 2,781 5:00 PM 0 20 1 0 9 5 4 40 383 0 8 188 710 0 2 0 0 4 28 6 14 2,820 5:15 PM 0 19 2 0 21 1 3 26 345 0 9 235 726 0 1 1 5 14 26 6 19 2,728 5:30 PM 0 25 1 0 20 1 1 29 297 0 12 221 667 1 13 0 2 7 17 12 24 2,757 5:45 PM 0 20 1 0 21 1 3 30 352 0 14 219 717 0 4 1 0 8 30 6 12 2,667 6:00 PM 0 28 1 0 16 3 7 26 268 1 14 163 618 1 12 0 0 16 42 17 16 2,349 6:15 PM 0 39 3 0 16 3 4 44 305 2 15 229 755 1 6 0 2 20 39 16 20 6:30 PM 0 18 2 0 18 1 4 31 248 2 6 183 577 1 5 1 0 14 29 9 12 6:45 PM 0 11 1 0 15 1 2 23 159 1 6 149 399 1 2 1 3 2 13 5 11 Count Total 35 15 345 3,708 153 7,835 6 126 2,335 299 0 254 17 135 0 206 19 197 8 64 7 Peak Hour 11 125 1,377 0 43 863 0 84 5 0 71 8 2,820 33 101 30 69 1 20 2 7 Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 1 - Ex AM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Future Volume (veh/h) 98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 813 119 98 802 104 44 3 10 110 11 201 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 141 1207 176 128 1193 154 129 143 478 143 787 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4578 590 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 614 318 98 595 311 44 0 13 110 11 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1764 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 913 470 128 887 460 129 0 621 143 787 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 1929 993 490 1891 980 368 0 621 510 787 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 29.1 29.2 40.6 29.5 29.6 41.8 0.0 17.4 40.2 15.0 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.9 1.7 9.2 0.9 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.5 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.8 30.0 30.9 49.8 30.4 31.3 43.4 0.0 17.4 48.7 15.1 13.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 1004 57 322
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 32.6 37.5 25.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 38.2 10.9 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.6 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.5 7.3 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 2 - Ex PM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 1530 37 48 959 112 93 6 33 79 9 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 188 2210 53 67 1684 196 165 72 393 103 555 637 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4637 540 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 1016 551 48 703 368 93 0 39 79 9 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1773 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 1467 797 67 1236 644 165 0 465 103 555 637 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1005 413 0 465 324 555 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.6 24.6 44.8 0.0 25.1 44.7 23.9 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.3 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.3 6.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.8 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.0 25.4 47.8 0.0 25.4 56.0 24.0 18.5 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1718 1119 132 165
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.3 26.6 41.2 36.7
Approach LOS C C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 32.0 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 14.6 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 4.9 10.0 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.0
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 3 - Ex+P AM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 813 119 98 802 106 44 3 10 114 11 207 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 144 1206 175 131 1191 156 129 142 473 147 785 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4567 600 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 614 318 98 597 311 44 0 13 114 11 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1762 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 912 469 131 888 460 129 0 615 147 785 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.75 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 1925 991 489 1886 977 368 0 615 509 785 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 29.2 29.3 40.6 29.6 29.6 41.9 0.0 17.6 40.2 15.1 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 0.9 1.7 8.2 0.9 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.1 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.7 30.1 31.0 48.8 30.5 31.4 43.5 0.0 17.7 48.5 15.2 13.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1006 57 332
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.3 32.5 37.6 25.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 37.9 11.1 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.7 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.7 7.5 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 4 - Ex+P PM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 157 1530 37 48 959 117 93 6 33 81 9 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 194 2210 53 67 1658 202 165 71 391 105 555 643 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4612 561 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 1016 551 48 707 369 93 0 39 81 9 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1769 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1467 797 67 1224 636 165 0 463 105 555 643 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1003 413 0 463 324 555 643 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.9 24.9 44.8 0.0 25.2 44.6 23.9 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.1 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.4 6.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.6 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.3 25.7 47.8 0.0 25.5 55.7 24.0 18.3 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1724 1124 132 171
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 26.9 41.2 36.3
Approach LOS C C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 31.9 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 15.0 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 5.1 10.3 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Appendix C
Parking Study
Memorandum
Date: September 8, 2025
To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing
From: Gary K. Black
Nivedha Baskarapandian
Subject: Parking Study and Trip Generation Estimate for the Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study and trip generation estimate for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the CA-85 soundwall and Mary Avenue and would provide 19 units for the developmentally disabled and 21 affordable units. Between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, 171 diagonal parking spaces are provided along the west side, and 70 parallel parking spaces are provided on the east side of Mary Avenue.

First Parking Counts
Parking counts were completed to determine the current maximum occupied parking spaces on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard Vehicle parking counts were conducted along Mary Avenue on the following dates and times to determine the parking demand of the existing parking spaces (see Attachment 1). These times were chosen based on predicted usage of the existing parking spaces from the neighboring park and other surrounding uses.
• Saturday April 12, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 PM
• Tuesday April 15, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM • Thursday April 17, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM The peak parking demand was found to be 24 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and six spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue between 2:00-3:00 PM on Thursday April 17, for a total of 30 occupied spaces.

Additional Parking Counts
The first set of parking counts did not denote where the cars were parked along the street.

Therefore, additional counts were conducted. Counts were counted along Mary Avenue from Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard on Thursday April 24, 2025, from 2:00-3:00 PM which was determined to be the time most parking spaces were occupied (see Attachment 1). Figure 1 shows the summary of the additional parking counts.

Lubec St
5 2
2 3
17 85
Mary Ave
Mary Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Parkwood Dr
Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
8 LEGEND
= Additional Observed Area
= Occupied Parking
XX = Number of Occupied Parking Spaces
Figure 1
Mary Avenue Parking Summary
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Parking Study and Trip Generation Estimate September 8, 2025 P a g e | 3
The peak parking demand based on the additional count was found to be 26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue, for a total of 37 spaces occupied on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Trip Generation Estimates
Hexagon prepared trip estimates for the proposed project using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025 (see Table 1), Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily (Land Use 252) and Affordable Housing (Land Use 223).

Developmentally disabled housing is not a category in the ITE manual. Senior Housing will perhaps over-estimate the number of trips, but best represents housing for people that are not going to work or school on a daily basis. Affordable Housing includes multifamily housing that is rented at below market rate. Eligibility to live in affordable housing can be a function of limited household income, resident age, or special needs. These ITE land use categories best represent the units proposed.

The developmentally disabled units would be for residents who are unable to operate vehicles, and the affordable housing units would be for low-income residents.

Based on the trip generation rates, the project would generate 164 new daily trips, with 12 new trips (three inbound and nine outbound) during both the AM peak hour and 15 new trips (nine inbound and six outbound) during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area.

Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates
Conclusion
The results of the parking study and trip generation estimates are summarized below. • On Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, at most 37 vehicles were parked which occurred during a weekday from 2:00 -3:00 PM. • The project would generate 164 new daily trips with 12 new trips during the AM peak hour and 15 new trips during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area.

Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed
Disabled Housing 1 19 d.u. 3.25 62 0.19 1 3 4 0.25 3 2 5 Affordable Housing 2 21 d.u. 4.87 102 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 164 3 9 12 9 6 15
Notes
d.u. = dwelling units
1 2 Trip generation rate for the proposed affordable are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 223 "Affordable Housing."
Trip generation rate for the proposed housing for the developmentally disabled is based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 252 "Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily." Daily
Rate1
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Attachment 1
Parking Counts

AUTO CENSUS
Date: Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Counters: 5973 Larkstone Loop
Location:

Weather: Fair
Date Time West East Total
12-Apr 12-1pm 8 0 8
15-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1
15-Apr 2-3pm 21 8 29
15-Apr 7-8pm 1 0 1
0 17-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1
17-Apr 2-3pm 24 6 30
17-Apr 7-8pm 3 1 4
Mary Avenue
Parking Count- 25NB03(Cupertino)
4/12-4/17/25
Jo 445 Lily Ann Way
Mary Ave. San Jose, CA 95123

From: Wangchen Long
To: Public Comments
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:34:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
We are long time Cupertino residents, since 2001 to be exact.

I moved to the bay area in 1993, and have worked and
raised my kids here in Cupertino.

Currently we heard there's discussion on the Mary
Avenue Villas, and we are quite concern whether there will be enough considerations for all sectors of the community, specifically for the special needs community.

Cupertino's school district accommodates for the special needs children. Do we accommodate this population when
they grow up?
We strongly feel that a complete society would need to be inclusive, and thus we would like to ask you for your support to ensure there are housing options and possibilities for this population with special needs.

Best Regards,
Wangchen Long
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Support for Item 12
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:11:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
Please support the Mary avenue project without further delay by providing positive direction forward in today's study session.

This project represents the culmination of more than 15 years of housing advocacy in Cupertino for those with intellectual or developmental disabilities, including those diagnosed with autism, Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, intellectual disability, and other conditions. This has been part of the city's work program now for 5 years.

The current financial climate for building homes is exceptionally challenging and unpredictable—never mind the additional challenges associated with building affordable homes for those with specific needs. The City should not introduce any additional process that could jeopardize this projects' viability.

In terms of process, there has already been three public outreach and engagement opportunities starting in July of last year, and two years of ongoing public engagement through the housing element process, for which Mary Avenue was included as a site.

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Slides for Dec 2,2025 City Council - Agenda Item 12 Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:47:03 PM
Attachments: City Council meeting Dec 2 2025.pptx
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Lina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:03 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Cc: Roberta Murai <[email protected]>; Jordan Clancy Behmke <[email protected]> Subject: Slides for Dec 2,2025 City Council - Agenda Item 12 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kirsten,
Please see the following public comments for Agenda Item #12 tonight that I'd like to present.

Can you also pair me with Roberta Murai for public comments on agenda item #12? We will make a note on the blue cards too to speak sequentially.

Our neighborhood attorney, Jordan Behmke will be speaking remotely. Is there any way to group together with him as well? Or will we get separated because of the difference in attendance format?
Lastly, would neighbors be able to transfer their in-person speaking time to Mr. Behmke, should time run short and comments shrink to 2 or 1 min? Thank you,
Mary Avenue Villas Housing
Project:

Don’t take away our public space
City Council Meeting Study Session (Item 12)
Cupertino residents and citizens
Garden Gate Coalition
Arroyo Village / Westport
(APN: 326-27-053)

1. This Project Will Guarantee Accidents
• This project doesn’t fit safely
• It ignores setback requirements  unsafe!
Fire hazards!
• Builds into the road
• Will narrow traffic and bike lanes
• Creates safety issues
• Removes 89 parking spots in a bustling
area that is still growing
• Lacks short term parking spaces
• Cars may stall or double park

2. Stop the Process, Be Transparent: The
City Didn't Ask Us First.
• Skipped steps in the process: missed vacation,
SLA steps
• Parcel is not suitable to be transferred or sold.
• Its validity is questionable.
• Community was never given a chance to weigh in
on the decision to give away a piece of our public
land before you started designing a building on it.

3. Ethical Concerns & Need for Impartiality:

Request Immediate Investigation of Conflicts of
Interest.
• Rotary Club affiliates within City leadership
• Pressured and rushed direction to City staff
• Compromised public trust
• Take a step back, follow the state laws,
and bring this decision back to the public in an honest, upfront way.

Give us a voice before you give away our
streets.

From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:47:17 PM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Dear City Clerk,
Please include this letter in written communications for agenda item 12 for 12/2/25 council meeting and for the next upcoming council meeting.

Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews, CAO, CM Kapoor,
Please note the precedent in the below and attached HCD notice of violation to the city of Ontario dated June 18 2025. The precedent directly applies to the actions in progress currently in the city of Cupertino attempting to move forward with appointing a negotiator. take steps towards disposition and engaging in exclusive negotiations with a pre-determined buyer without first completing the SLA process and required notices and noticing period.

I write to respectfully urge the Council to pause any efforts to approve a negotiator, enter into negotiation, or take any steps toward disposition or sale of public land until the city has fully satisfied the notice, findings, and waiting‑period requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including providing required documentation to HCD and observing the legally mandated notice/negotiation windows.

Background — Relevant Legal Obligation
Under the SLA (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234), a local agency must first declare property “surplus” (not needed for public use), adopt a resolution to that effect, and then issue a formal Notice of Availability (NOA) to: (1) HCD; (2) any local public entities within the jurisdiction; and (3) developers on HCD’s list of those interested in surplus public land for affordable housing. California Housing Dept.+2Banning, CA+2 After that NOA is issued, the city must allow a minimum statutory waiting period (60 days for responses) and, if any eligible entities respond, a mandated 90‑day good‑faith negotiation period before disposing of the land. Banning, CA+2California Housing Dept.+2
Furthermore, under recent amendments to the SLA (2024), if a local agency receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) from HCD for noncompliance, the agency is required to hold an open public meeting to evaluate the NOV — and the agency may not proceed with any disposal until that process is complete. Allen Matkins - Allen Matkins+2California Housing Dept.+2 Precedent — HCD’s 2025 Finding Against City of Ontario
In a September 22, 2025 Follow-Up Notice of Violation addressed to Ontario’s City Manager, HCD found that Ontario had violated the SLA by disposing of a 2.368‑acre parcel (APN 0218‑111‑12‑0000) without first declaring the land surplus and without issuing the required notices. California Housing Dept.+1
HCD concluded that the disposition and the fact that the City had “exclusively negotiated with the Developer” prior to complying with SLA requirements—constituted a clear SLA violation. California Housing Dept.+1 HCD also invoked applicable statutory penalties under Gov. Code § 54230.5 for the first‐time violation (30 % of the disposition value) and warned that future violations would trigger even higher penalties (50 % of the disposition value). California Housing Dept.+1
The Ontario case demonstrates that HCD is actively enforcing SLA compliance including penalizing cities that attempt to circumvent the required surplus‑land process by negotiating in advance with a favored developer, or disposing of land without the required surplus declaration and notice.

Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:

Proceeding with negotiations, designating a "negotiator," or otherwise taking substantive steps toward disposition before completing the full SLA process would risk very likely violation of state law.

Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.

Such action may also frustrate the primary public-purpose objective of the SLA: to give first priority to affordable-housing proponents or other public entities, rather than to private developers selected in advance.

Pause and Complete SLA Process Before Any Further Action In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council adopt a temporary moratorium on any of the following steps until the SLA‑required process has been fully observed and documented, and until any required findings and waiting periods have been completed:

Appointment of a negotiator or negotiation team
Entering into or approving formal negotiations with any private developer Any pre-disposition activity regarding sale or lease of the land (including drafting term sheets, letters of intent, exclusivity agreements, or similar) Any vote toward approval of disposition, transfer, or sale of the land At minimum, the city should first:

1. Declare the parcel “surplus” or exempt surplus after written findings with evidence via a formal Council resolution;

2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per SLA requirements;

3. Observe the 60‑day notice period, await any responses, and if responses are received allow full 90‑day good-faith negotiations;

4. Submit documentation of the notice and negotiation process, and any recorded restrictions or covenants, to HCD for review per SLA guidelines. California Housing Dept.+2Banning, CA+2
Conclusion
The state’s recent 2025 decision in the Ontario case makes clear that SLA compliance is no longer optional, and that state enforcement can and will penalize cities that attempt to circumvent the process.

Given the potential legal and financial risks, and the public’s interest in transparent, fair, and affordable‑housing–oriented land disposition, I strongly urge the Council to suspend any further steps toward negotiation or sale until full compliance with SLA has been completed and documented.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) SLA0001613
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 18, 2025
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Dear Scott Ochoa:

RE: City of Ontario’s Surplus Land Disposition of a 2.368-Acre Portion of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue (APN 0218-111-12-0000) – Notice of Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) hereby issues this Notice of Violation, pursuant to Government Code sections 54230.5, 65585, and 65585.1, to the City of Ontario (City) regarding the City’s disposition of a 2.368-acre portion of the property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue in the City of Ontario, with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0218-111- 12-0000 (Property).

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585.1, subdivision (a), HCD must notify a local agency if it finds that the local agency is in violation of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local agency is in violation of the SLA.

The City has 60 days from receipt of this letter to cure or correct the violations noted herein.1 If the City does not cure or correct all such violations by August 18, 2025, a penalty will be assessed to the City equal to 30 percent of the disposition value.2 In the event of a sale, the disposition value is the greater of the final sale price of the land or the fair market value of the surplus land at the time of the sale.3 HCD may also pursue additional remedies authorized under Government Code sections 65585 and 65585.1. 1 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).
2 Ibid.
3 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(2).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
Background
HCD initially received a Notice of Alleged Violation (enclosed) pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines on March 14, 2025, from UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11) regarding the City’s approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for sale of the Property. Local 11 provided prior correspondence, including a letter to the City requesting information on how the action complied with the SLA, prior to the City Council taking action to authorize the sale and disposition of the Property at a public meeting on February 18, 2025.

On March 21, 2025, HCD requested a meeting with the City to discuss the alleged violations. On April 8, 2025, HCD met with City staff, who asserted that disposition was undertaken pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Law.
4 The City is also in the process
of developing this Property in addition to 190 acres of adjacent City-owned lands for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex. The City shared during the conversation that close of escrow and disposition of the Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (Developer) was completed on April 4, 2025.

On April 10, 2025, the City provided HCD documentation regarding the disposition, which includes the City Council’s action to approve the DDA between the City and the Developer at a public meeting on February 18, 2025. The documentation includes a resolution describing the City’s “exclusive negotiations” with the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a “luxury 5-star hotel” with 227 guest rooms. The terms and conditions of the DDA also require the Developer to convey to the City approximately 25,489 square feet area of easements for right-of-way and temporary construction purposes. While the documentation included a summary report of written findings claiming that the disposition met the statutory requirements of the Economic Opportunity Law, no such findings or statements were made with respect to meeting the statutory requirements of the SLA. The City further confirmed details of the disposition during a follow-up conversation with HCD on May 5, 2025 and by providing the close of escrow documentation on May 13, 2025. The additional documentation notes an approximate net payment of $979,219.51 to the City, based upon the easements value and closing costs being credited against the Property’s fair market value.

Analysis
Based on a review and analysis of the City’s documentation and subsequent disposition of the Property, HCD finds that the City violated the SLA, as discussed below. 4 Gov. Code, § 52201.

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
The City Did Not Make the Land Available Pursuant to the SLA Government Code section 54221, subdivision (b)(1) states:
“‘Surplus land’ means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land.’” (Emphasis added.)
In addition, Government Code section 54222 requires the following:
“[A]ny local agency disposing of surplus land… shall send, before disposing of that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, a written notice of availability of the property to all of the following: (a)(1) A written notice of availability for developing lowand moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, that has jurisdiction where the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land shall be sent a notice of availability for the purpose of developing low- and moderateincome housing. All notices shall be sent by electronic mail, or by certified mail, and shall include the location and a description of the property.” (Emphasis added.)
Government Code section 54230.5, subdivision (b)(1) further states:
“Before agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a description of the notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted with any responding entities, in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land and a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property pursuant to Section 54222.5, 54233, or 54233.5, whichever is applicable, in a form prescribed by the Department of Housing and Community Development.” (Emphasis added.)
The City’s approval of a DDA between the City and the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a hotel on February 18, 2025, and close of escrow on Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
April 4, 2025, qualify as a disposition of surplus land under the SLA. When the Property qualifies as surplus land, then the City must send notices of availability (NOA) for developing low- and moderate-income housing to all entities required under Government Code section 54222 prior to disposing of or participating in negotiations to dispose of the Property. The City must also provide to HCD a description of the NOAs sent and negotiations conducted with any of the responding entities above, in addition to a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, pursuant to the above requirements. Similarly, the SLA also requires that exempt surplus land determinations be supported by written findings and documentation. All local agency reporting requirements for surplus land and exempt surplus land are described further in Section 400 of the SLA Guidelines.
5 However, the City has not provided any such documentation to HCD regarding this transaction prior to exclusively negotiating with the Developer, entering into a subsequent DDA with the Developer, and closing escrow. The documentation provided to date, including the public meeting held on February 18, 2025, makes no reference of the Property as surplus land or exempt surplus land and does not include any written findings pursuant to the SLA. Thus, the City has not complied with these key provisions of the SLA prior to disposing of the Property.

Economic Opportunity Law Does Not Relieve the City of SLA Requirements During the meeting on April 8, 2025, the City claimed that it met statutory requirements by disposing of the Property under the Economic Opportunity Law, or Government Code section 52201. The City’s documentation includes written findings, stating that the disposition will “(i) [strengthen] the City’s land use and social structure, (ii) [alleviate] economic and physical blight on the Property and in the surrounding community, (iii) generate property tax revenue, (iv) produce new jobs, (v) stimulate economic vitality and (vi) continue to inspire additional investment within the Ontario Sports Empire.” The Economic Opportunity Law, in relevant part, states that “[a] city, county, or city and county may sell or lease property to create an economic opportunity.”6 (Emphasis added.) The use of the word “may,” instead of “shall,” indicates that the City is not required to utilize the Economic Opportunity statutes, whereas the SLA includes mandatory requirements for local agencies, stating: “Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local 5 Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-landact-guidelines-2024.pdf. 6 Gov. Code, § 52201, subd. (a)(1).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures.”7 (Emphasis added).

Notably, the City was aware of HCD’s position on this precise issue before finalizing the disposition of the Property. Local 11’s March 14, 2025 Notice of Alleged Violation, which was provided to the City, references a similar letter that HCD issued to the City of Moreno Valley.
8 As Local 11 points out, “HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with the Economic Opportunity Law....” HCD reached out to the City just a week later, on March 21, 2025, but the City disposed of the Property on April 4, 2025,just days before meeting with HCD on April 8, 2025. The City should have paused and consulted with HCD upon receipt of Local 11’s letter and again when HCD reached out to schedule a meeting. Instead, the City moved forward with the disposition.

Further, HCD is not aware of, nor has the City provided, any statutory or decisional authorities standing for the proposition that disposition of the Property under Economic Opportunity Law excuses or exempts the City from complying with SLA requirements.

As such, HCD finds that disposition of the Property and any surplus land under the Economic Opportunity Law is in violation of the SLA.

Conclusion and Next Steps
Based on the information provided, HCD finds that the City’s disposition of the Property is in violation of the SLA because the City failed to make the surplus land available for affordable housing, and the City has not provided any documentation demonstrating compliance with, or exemption from, the SLA before disposing of the Property. The City further violated the SLA by exclusively negotiating with the Developer and by subsequently moving forward with a disposition and sale of the Property.

As discussed above, under Government Code section 542320.5, subdivision (a)(1), the City has 60 days following receipt of this letter, or August 18, 2025, to cure or correct the violations noted herein, or it will be assessed a penalty equal to 30 percent of the disposition value. The City may have few options to cure or correct the violations, and HCD invites the City to discuss further. Pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines, HCD has informed Local 11 of the violations noted herein.

Furthermore, should the City proceed to dispose of additional surplus land or exempt surplus land that would constitute subsequent violations of the SLA, including under the Economic Opportunity Law, the City will be assessed a penalty equal to 50 percent of the applicable disposition values.9
7 Gov. Code, § 54221, subd. (b)(1). 8 City of Moreno Valley Notice of Violation available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/moreno-valley-nov101823.pdf. 9 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
If the City or its representatives have any questions or need additional technical assistance regarding the SLA, please contact Linda Ly, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Enclosure
cc: Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency Rudy Zeledon, Executive Director, Community Development Agency Ruben Duran, City Attorney, Best Best & Krieger LLP
March 14, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL, EMAIL & ONLINE PORTAL: https://calhcd.servicenow.com/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=91e19b8ac31955109a97251ce0013105 Department of Housing and Community Development ([email protected]) Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF SURPLUS LAND ACT;
ITEM 12, CITY OF ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2025; DDA FOR 2.3-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT E. RIVERSIDE DR./VINEYARD AVE.

Dear Housing Accountability & Enforcement Unit (“HAU”):

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully writes to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) requesting its investigation of a potential violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234) (“SLA”)1 involving the City of Ontario (“City”) disposition of a 2.368-acre property located at the corner of East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) (“Property”).

On February 18, 2025, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) for the sale of the City-owned Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (“Developer”), citing the Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §§ 52200-52201).2 Before the City approved the DDA, Local 11 submitted written and verbal comments raising questions about whether the City complied with the SLA. (See Local 11 letter dated February 18, 2025 [attached hereto].) As raised in these comments, Local 11’s research has not found any confirmation that the Property was first made available to housing sponsors via a written notice of availability (“NOA”). (See e.g., Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines § 201.) Nor has Local 11’s research found any confirmation that the City made appropriate exempt surplus land findings during a regular public meeting. (See e.g., Gov.

Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c), 400(e).) These types of SLA issues, if verified, have been the subject of Notice of Violations (“NOV(s)”) issued by HCD for other jurisdictions, including 1 Inclusive of SLA Guidelines (8/1/24) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-andcommunity/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf. 2 See City Council Agenda (2/18/25) Agenda, Item 12, https://granicus_production_attachments.s3. amazonaws.com/ontarioca/8b1c31aa587d3d63597574d77713d4830.pdf; Id., Agenda Report, https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ontarioca/ccfc6d371db4ae6a268fd028108a650c0.pdf; Id., Resolution, https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/ 3152722/PH_13_Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_DDA_02_RESO_RM.pdf; Id., Summary Report, https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3096019/Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_LLC_52201_Sum mary_Report_ED_Opp_03.pdf.

Notice of Potential Violation RE: City of Ontario (APN 0218111120000) March 14, 2025

an NOV issued to the City of Moreno Valley, where HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §52200-52203). 3 The City approved the DDA over objections made by the public, including Local 11’s request that the City stay its action until after seeking technical advice from HCD. To date, we have yet to receive any legally sufficient explanation from the City of whether and how the City’s DDA approval has complied with the SLA requirements to make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Local 11 supports housing laws intended to promote genuine housing, particularly affordable housing projects. Therefore, Local 11 respectfully requests that HCD review our attached comment letter and investigate whether the City’s approval of the DDA complied with the SLA and HCD Guidelines.

We thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.

Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
ATTACHMENT: UNITE HERE Local 11 Letter (2/18/24)
CC: (email only)
Sheila Mautz, City Clerk ([email protected])
Scott Ochoa, City Manager ([email protected])
Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Exec. Director Econ. Dev. ([email protected]) 3 City of Moreno Valley (10/18/2023) Notice of Violation RE Northwest Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/morenovalley-nov-101823.pdf; see also San Bernardino (5/24/2023) Notice of Violation RE 295 Carousel Mall, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/San-Bernardino-CarouselMall-Follow-Up-Letter-052423.pdf; Roseville (12/4/2023) Notice of Violation RE 6382 Phillip Road, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/roseville-nov-sla120423.pdf; Anaheim (12/8/21) Notice of Violation RE 2000 East Gene Autry Way, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/anaheim-surplus-land-actnov-120821.pdf.

February 18, 2025
VIA EMAIL:

City Council, City of Ontario
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
[email protected]
RE: Item 12, City Council Meeting February 18, 2025;
Disposition and Development Agreement for Land Sale and 227-Room Hotel; UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments
Dear Mayor Leon and Honorable City Councilmembers:

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Ontario (“City”) regarding the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) between the City and Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (“Developer”).

The DDA would allow for the sale of a 2.368-acre City-owned property located at the corner of East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) (“Site” or “Property”) in anticipation of a 227-room, 5-star luxury hotel (“Project”). According to the staff report for the above-referenced item,2 the Project was considered in the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (“ORSC”) Environmental Impact Report (i.e., SCH No. 2023110328) (“EIR”), 3 which was certified
and approved by the City Council on July 16, 2024. (Agenda Report, p. 2.) Upon review of the relevant documents, Local 11 has several concerns with the DDA, including several live issues with the DDA and the proposed 227-room hotel’s compliance with the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), 4 and the City’s zoning
code. As further explained below, it is unclear if the City has complied with the SLA requirement to make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Additionally, it seems that the prior EIR only considered a 100-room hotel in a different location. So too, the significantly larger hotel is likely to exacerbate vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) and associated greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts, which could be further mitigated through feasible mitigation measures not considered. Furthermore, the staff report fails to provide and/or explain critical information about key financial aspects of the DDA or explain why the City does not require a hotel-specific conditional use permit (“CUP”) at this time, as required under the City’s zoning code.

For these reasons, Local 11 respectfully asks the City to stay action on the DDA until all SLA requirements have been satisfied, a CEQA-compliant review has been conducted, a hotel-specific mandatory commuter trip reduction program is added, and there is an opportunity for the public to vet key financial studies associated with the DDA along with all entitlements for the hotel Project. 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”). 2 Inclusive of the “Agenda Report” dated 2/18/25, “Summary Report” regarding the DDA, “Exhibit A” Property view, DDA, and the proposed “DDA Resolution”.
3 Inclusive of the Draft EIR (“DEIR”), Final EIR (“FEIR”), and Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Program (“MMRP”).
4 Including “CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

I. LOCAL 11’S STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix—including approximately 450 members who live and/or work in Ontario. The union has a First Amendment right to petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance with applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and individual residents do. Protecting its members’ interest in the environment, including advocating for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local 11’s core function.

Recognizing unions’ interest and union members’ interest in these issues, California courts have consistently upheld unions’ standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City’s public duty to comply with applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n.6; La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159; Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 166, 169–170.) II. SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE DDA & PROJECT

1. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT The Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234)(“SLA”), inclusive of its guidelines (“SLA Guidelines”) prepared by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), aims to make local public land that is no longer needed for government purposes available for building affordable homes.5 The SLA applies to all cities, including charter cities. (See Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683.) Generally, before disposing of surplus land, a local agency must send a written notice of availability (“NOA”) of the property to HCD, any local public entity within the jurisdiction where the surplus local land is located, and affordable housing sponsors who have notified HCD. (See Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines §201.) While there are exceptions to this requirement, a local agency’s determination that land is exempt surplus land must be supported by written findings during a regular public meeting of the agency, with those findings sent to the HCD. (See Gov. Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c) and 400(e).) Here, the City is proposing the disposition of the City-owned Property, but the available documentation reviewed by Local 11 does not mention whether the Property was subject to a NOA or declared exempt. Nor is it clear whether the Property falls within any of the categories of “exempt surplus land” under Gov. Code § 54221(f)(1). While subdivision (c) notes an exemption for land exchanged for “another property necessary for the agency’s use”, it is unclear how and whether that exemption would apply to the DDA, which references a proposed exchange of 25,489 square feet (0.585 acres) non-exclusive, right-of-way remained owned by the land owner (i.e., 7-25 5 See HCD Public Lands for Affordable Housing Development (identifying land acquisition as one of the biggest challenges to new affordable housing, and outlining several actions taken by the state to enhance the SLA, such as Executive Order N-06-19 [Gov. Newsom, 2019], AB 1486 [Ting, 2019], AB 1255 [Robert Rivas, 2019]), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/public-lands-affordable-housingdevelopment.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

feet adjacent to dirt sidewalk area) and temporary construction easement would apply.6 The sidewalk is less than one-fourth the size of the 2.368-acre Property, 7 and there appears to be ample
space within existing rights-of-way (i.e., dirt side walk and road) to access existing utility lines along Riverside Drive.8 Furthermore, future street improvements (e.g., street, sewer, traffic signal, utility lines, etc. ) are already anticipated along Vineyard right-of-way (i.e., five-lane with 8-foot multi-use trail) as subject to the previously approved ORSC.9 In sum, it is unclear how this significantly smaller temporary construction easement is necessary here to qualify as exempt, which would nevertheless have to be declared exempted at a regular public meeting.

2. THE DDA’S PROPOSAL OF A 227-ROOM HOTEL WAS NOT ANALYZED UNDER THE PRIOR EIR Under CEQA, once an EIR has been prepared, a subsequent or supplement EIR is required for granting a later discretionary approval when there have been: (i) substantial changes to the project, (ii) substantial changes in the circumstances involving the project, or (iii) significant new information involving the project. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Projects not contemplated or not within the geographic area may require additional CEQA analysis.10 Here, the DDA contemplates a 227-room hotel, which the staff report suggests was covered by the previously certified EIR.11 However, the EIR does not mention the DDA or the proposed 227-room hotel Project. Instead, the EIR contemplated a mere 100-room hotel located in planning area (“PA”) 3, and anticipated retail uses within PA2 (i.e., where the City-owned Property is located). 12 It is
unclear if the City is now contemplating a single larger hotel in a different location (i.e., a 227-room hotel in PA2) or is considering two hotels (i.e., 227-rooms in PA2 plus the 100-room hotel in PA3).

As disucssed below, even a single larger hotel would likely have exacerbated impacts not analyzed or mitigated under the certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed 227-room hotel development appears 6 See Agenda Report, p. 2; Exhibit A (area generally located along sidewalk area); DDA, PDF p. 7, 59, 78 (section 1.1.49, Exhs. A-1 & D-1).
7 For example, this SLA exemption has been cited by other agencies exchanging relatively comparable properties. (See e.g., Capitola Planning Commission Agenda Report (4/4/24), p. 1 [5,592-sf property [Soquel Union Elementary School District] in exchange for 4,284-sf property [City of Capitola]), https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/capitolaca-meet7a1699cfde7f4d0f8d2bce5df22a5e22/ITEM-Attachment-003-fa130eb7dab849d0a07fab4d3f57eaa1.pdf. 8 See GoogleMaps, https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+Vineyard+Ave+%26+E+Riverside+ Dr,+Ontario, +CA+91761/ @34.019553,-117.6108423,3a,60y,275.55h,90.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5! 1sg62gK6vh1vo5 oTVRplSt-w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2 Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client% 3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.31853410523336834% 26panoid%3Dg62g K6vh1vo5oTVRplSt-w%26yaw%3D275.5462992542434! 7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c334cd1f399d7 b:0x14ca414b23038095!8m2!3d34.0195981!4d-117.610924!16s%2Fg%2F11gdzt7tpb?entry=ttu&g_ep= EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D.
9 See DEIR, PDF p. 101, 117, 127-136, 151-159, 692; see also Agenda Report (7/16/24, Item 20, p. 4. 10 See e.g., Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v 32nd Dist. Agric. Ass'n (1986) 42 C3d 929, 937 (plans for approved amphitheater project changed to increase seating significantly, expand the site, and reorient the stage to face nearby residences); Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2020) 51 CA5th 226, 237 (claim that university changed project described in campus long-range development plan by approving increases in student enrollment well beyond development plan and EIR projections, without considering whether further CEQA review was required, alleged violation of CEQA). 11 See Summary Report, p. 1; Agenda Report, p. 2; DDA, PDF p. 60 [Exh. B Scope of Development]. 12 DEIR, PDF pp. 32, 41-43, 114-117 (project components and planning areas), 176-178 (listing the project approvals); MMRP, PDF p. 7.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

to reflect substantial changes to the project, meaning that further CEQA review should be required before the City approves the DDA.

3. EXACERBATED GHG/VMT IMPACTS CAN BE FURTHER MITIGATED As mentioned above, the staff report suggests the proposed action was covered by the prior FEIR, including the Council finding that “all environmental impacts” have been addressed within the prior EIR and that “no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.” (Proposed Resolution, p. 3.) However, the prior EIR contemplated only a 100-room hotel, including assessing VMTs and GHGs associated with the hotel use.13 By more than doubling that size, the anticipated Project would possibly significantly increase the amount of VMTs and GHGs (including those deriving from mobile emissions) associated with the hotel use (i.e., new or exacerbated impacts). These are impacts going above and beyond those previously found significant and unavoidable.14 As it relates to hotel-related development within PAs 2 and 3, the EIR largely relies on mitigation measures GHG-4 (i.e., point system under City’s Community Climate Action Plan (“CCAP”)) and TRAF-1a (development of Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”)).15 (See excerpts below.)
GHG-4 The City of Ontario shall require applicants to design and construct buildings in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 to achieve a 100-point score with the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), Table 6, “Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030.” Alternatively, the analysis of development projects can be done through emissions calculations to demonstrate equivalent reductions using CalEEMod or a similar tool. Projects that do not use the CCAP Screening Tables to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CCAP must demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG emissions that do not exceed the following emission screening thresholds from the CCAP:

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO 2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds
###
13 DEIR, Appendix D1 (Air Quality GHG Modeling), PDF pp. 4, 31, 683; DEIR, Appendix L1 (VMT Memorandum), PDF pp. 9, 34; FEIR, PDF p. 171.
14 See e.g., CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, pp. 105-109, 115-119, 137, 141-142.
15 Ibid., see also MMRP, pp. 23, 30,
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

TRAF-1a Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:
• Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees. • Implement an employee parking cash-out program for employees. • Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion. • Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors. (See ORSC EIR, MMRP, pp. 23, 30.)
While the ORSC EIR stated there were no other feasible mitigation measures, 16 additionally
feasible mitigation measures do seem available to reduce the impacts exacerbated by the larger hotel Project17—especially measures that can minimize VMTs and associated GHG mobile emissions recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) and other public agencies (e.g., Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”)).
18 For example, the City could require a
mandatory rather than merely voluntary commute trip reduction program (“CTRP”), provide subsidized transit passes, include bike/scooter-share facilities, and other strategies.19 CAPCOA estimates that a mandatory CTRP is more than six times more effective at reducing GHG impacts (i.e., up to 26%) as compared to a voluntary CTRP (i.e., up to 4%).20 Furthermore, it is unclear why some of the 227 rooms could not accommodate some form of on-site housing, such as affordable or 16 Ibid., 109, 119
17 To the extent impacts are part of the existing baseline conditions, it is nevertheless proper to evaluate a development’s exacerbating effects on existing impacts. (See Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 194 [quoting California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377, 388].)
18 See CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 73, 76, 80-96, https://www.airquality.org/ ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010) Quantifying GHGs and Mitigation, pp. 64-74, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34123/CAPCOA-2010-GHGQuantification-PDF; OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, pp. 27, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_ Technical_Advisory.pdf; SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 – 2.0-71 (see project-level mitigation measures for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618; SCAG (Apr. 2024), Program EIR, pp. A-7 – A-48, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/exhibit_a_mmrp_508_final.pdf?1712003625; CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, 4, 7, 24, 29 & Appendix D, pp. 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents; CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local Action, pp. 1-8, 7-9 & Appendix D, p. 2, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf. 19 See e.g., CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, pp. 83; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010), supra fn. 16, p. 66. 20 CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, at pp. 83, 86.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

work-force housing. Therefore, we urge the City to consider a more robust, hotel-specific mandatory commuter reduction program that could include:
• Specific performance level to be reached (e.g., specific VMT or average daily trip reduction or both);
• Specified participation level (e.g., 100% of employees); • Participation in guaranteed ride programs for employees who need to respond to emergencies arising when normal public transit is infeasible; • Incentivize employee carpool/vanpool access to preferential parking spaces or hotel valet service or both;
• Subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and patrons; • Provide end-of-trip facilities; and
• Dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations. 21 4. MISSING INFORMATION AND PROJECT PIECEMEALING
The staff report also fails to explain and/or provide other key information. For example, the staff report cites a Thompson & Thompson Real Estate Valuation and Consulting, Inc. appraisal, which is not included. (See Summary Report, p. 3.) This is significant because the staff report does not explain to the public numerous key issues with the DDA, for example: (1) how was the fair market value of the City-owned property determined to be “$14.00 per square foot”; (2) what is the difference between the City’s purchase price (i.e., $1.4 million) and the estimated reuse value of the Property to the Developer, which is admittedly valued “significantly higher”; and (3) how much increased “revenue” is the City expecting from the new hotel (e.g., property tax, TOT, etc.). (Id.) Furthermore, as part of the City’s action in July 2024, the Property was rezoned CCS,22 which requires a hotel CUP under section 5.03.250 of the City’s Development Code, which requires (among other things) a market feasibility study23—also not mentioned or provided in the staff report.

Additionally, the increased hotel component and failure to consider the CUP here raises the concern of whether the City is improperly piecemealing the Project and project approvals. Under CEQA, the City must assess “the whole of an action” and not improperly piecemeal a project’s analysis whereby the full impacts of a development are masked by chopping up the overall project into smaller development projects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(h), 15378(a).24) This analysis must include all phases of the project and all reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project. (Id., § 15126.25) This analysis should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process and before the City commits to any action. (Id., § 15004(b).) Here, the prior EIR looked at only a 100-room hotel—not a 227-room hotel—and the City seems to be considering committing to the larger hotel Project without conducting a subsequent CEQA analysis and evaluating a CUP. 21 See e.g., Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.5.130(B)(2)(b); https://www.octa.net/getting-around/ rideshare/oc-rideshare/employers/guaranteed-ride-home-program/; https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/ AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3098?fileID=21731.
22 see July Resolution, PDF pp. 1-2.
23 Dev. Code, PDF p. 17, 44, 54, 130-132.
24 See also Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730. 25 See also Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396-398; City of Santee v County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454.

Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025

III. CONCLUSION
In sum, Local 11 is concerned that the City may not be following normal SLA rules that would make the City Parcels available to housing developers. Local 11 is also concerned about the City’s reliance on an inadequate CEQA review and mitigation that seems to have never contemplated the DDA or a 227-room hotel at the Property (among other concerns). Local 11 respectfully urges the City to stay action on the DDA until the issues mentioned above are adequately addressed.

Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment period].) This office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to the address identified on page one of this letter.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.

Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.

Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Slides for tonight
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:47:28 PM
Attachments: City Council 11-18-25-v2.pptx
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:57 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Slides for tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kirsten,
If I end up speaking tom=night, I want to use the same slides as a few weeks ago.

Best,
Orrin
P roje ct Background
The Coalition
◼Drive n by a coalition of organizations :
-Rotary Club of Cupe rtino- Project lead
-Charities Hous ing- Proje ct Manage r and prope rty manage r -Hous ing Choices- Advocate and future cas e manage me nt -We s t Valle y Community Se rvice s- Othe r hous ing s e rvice s Today’s P lan
◼40 Units of affordable hous ing
◼19 Units targe te d for Adults with Inte lle ctual and De ve lopme ntal Dis abilitie s ( I/ DD)
◼Us e s “ s urplus land” to re duce cos ts
Com m unity Outre ach
• Firs t Me e ting 7/ 3/ 24
• Se cond Me e ting 1/ 28/ 25
• Third Me e ting 9/ 11/ 25
Re s pons e to Com m unity Is s ue s
Re s pons e to Com m unity Is s ue s
Inde pe nde nt Living
Hous ing Ele m e nt Site